Comparative Study of Cryptographic and Biometric Signatures

Abstract

The paper compares the two primary methods of electronic signature: (a) cryptographic electronic signature (CES), and b) dynamic biometric signature (DBS) in terms of key features such as: data used for signature, the possibility of counterfeiting, theft or misuse of the signature, time limitations of signature, test if signing person is alive, environmental influences during signing process, verification checks of signature authenticity, security of methods, ability to verify document integrity, necessity of use of special devices, complexity of implementation, ease of deployment in organization, simplicity of use for users, level of general method acceptance, limitations from the point of view of personal data protection and limitations determined in specific legal acts. Based on many practical observations the listed properties of both methods were scored. The results showed that both types of signatures were satisfactory in all of the above mentioned criteria, however, the overall score was higher in case of DBS. The EU legislation currently prefers CES over DBS by placing the signatures based on a qualified certificate within a hierarchy of signatures higher than the signatures created without using these certificates. Despite the fact that the possibility of separating certificates from the signing person can be considered as a major weakness of this method. The strong preference of CES has neither legal nor technological justification because the requirements for signatures in electronic documents are much stricter than for signature on paper. According to the authors, DBS should be considered more as a traditional signing method that is supplemented by indisprovable attributes in the form of a biometric trace unique to each person.