Watching the watchers: bias and vulnerability in remote proctoring software

Ben Burgess, Avi Ginsberg, E. Felten, Shaanan N. Cohney
{"title":"Watching the watchers: bias and vulnerability in remote proctoring software","authors":"Ben Burgess, Avi Ginsberg, E. Felten, Shaanan N. Cohney","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2205.03009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Educators are rapidly switching to remote proctoring and examination software for their testing needs, both due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the expanding virtualization of the education sector. State boards are increasingly utilizing these software for high stakes legal and medical licensing exams. Three key concerns arise with the use of these complex software: exam integrity, exam procedural fairness, and exam-taker security and privacy. We conduct the first technical analysis of each of these concerns through a case study of four primary proctoring suites used in U.S. law school and state attorney licensing exams. We reverse engineer these proctoring suites and find that despite promises of high-security, all their anti-cheating measures can be trivially bypassed and can pose significant user security risks. We evaluate current facial recognition classifiers alongside the classifier used by Examplify, the legal exam proctoring suite with the largest market share, to ascertain their accuracy and determine whether faces with certain skin tones are more readily flagged for cheating. Finally, we offer recommendations to improve the integrity and fairness of the remotely proctored exam experience.","PeriodicalId":91597,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the ... USENIX Security Symposium. UNIX Security Symposium","volume":"12 1","pages":"571-588"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the ... USENIX Security Symposium. UNIX Security Symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.03009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Educators are rapidly switching to remote proctoring and examination software for their testing needs, both due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the expanding virtualization of the education sector. State boards are increasingly utilizing these software for high stakes legal and medical licensing exams. Three key concerns arise with the use of these complex software: exam integrity, exam procedural fairness, and exam-taker security and privacy. We conduct the first technical analysis of each of these concerns through a case study of four primary proctoring suites used in U.S. law school and state attorney licensing exams. We reverse engineer these proctoring suites and find that despite promises of high-security, all their anti-cheating measures can be trivially bypassed and can pose significant user security risks. We evaluate current facial recognition classifiers alongside the classifier used by Examplify, the legal exam proctoring suite with the largest market share, to ascertain their accuracy and determine whether faces with certain skin tones are more readily flagged for cheating. Finally, we offer recommendations to improve the integrity and fairness of the remotely proctored exam experience.
监视监视者:远程监控软件中的偏见和漏洞
由于COVID-19大流行和教育部门不断扩大的虚拟化,教育工作者正在迅速转向远程监考和考试软件,以满足他们的考试需求。各州委员会越来越多地在高风险的法律和医疗执照考试中使用这些软件。使用这些复杂的软件会产生三个关键问题:考试的完整性、考试程序的公平性以及考生的安全和隐私。我们通过对美国法学院和州律师执照考试中使用的四个主要监考套件的案例研究,对这些问题进行了第一次技术分析。我们对这些监考套件进行了逆向工程,发现尽管有高安全性的承诺,但它们所有的反作弊措施都可以被轻易绕过,并可能构成重大的用户安全风险。我们评估了当前的面部识别分类器以及市场份额最大的法律考试监考套件example使用的分类器,以确定它们的准确性,并确定某些肤色的面孔是否更容易被标记为作弊。最后,我们提出建议,以提高远程监考的完整性和公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信