Inside Anti-Spoofing: Fenda’s 3D Face + Palm Vein Security Stack and CNAS Validation

Q: How does Fenda calibrate anti-spoofing thresholds for 3D structured light face recognition?

Fenda calibrates anti-spoofing thresholds by measuring false accept and false reject rates across scenario datasets—lighting, angle, occlusion, and capture distance—then ships a documented threshold schedule per model. The process uses large-scale training and validation to establish curves for standard, strict, and VIP risk levels. A re-test SOP and sample artifacts allow pilots and site UAT teams to reproduce decisions at the agreed thresholds. All attempts are logged with method, timestamp, and outcome, turning policy tuning into auditable evidence that supports procurement and compliance review.

Q: What makes palm vein liveness harder to spoof compared to fingerprint or 2D face?

Palm vein authentication analyzes near-infrared absorption of sub-dermal blood flow, an internal physiological pattern that is difficult to capture or fabricate. In contrast, 2D face can be attacked with photos or video replays, and fingerprints may be vulnerable to lifted latent prints or silicone molds. Vein signals combine structural and perfusion cues, providing strong liveness indicators even in varied lighting. As a second factor paired with 3D face or a PIN, palm vein materially reduces the likelihood of presentation attacks at high-value doors without adding friction for authorized users.

Q: How does Fenda’s CNAS lab simulate photo/video/mask attacks to validate anti-spoofing?

Fenda constructs a multi-class attack library that includes high-resolution photo prints, OLED/LCD video replays, and 2D/3D mask attempts. Tests are executed under realistic lighting ranges (from low-light to backlit corridors), angles, and distances to mirror real-world entries. Motion prompts and liveness challenges reduce static artifact success. Each attempt is recorded with confidence and decision, forming an auditable PAD matrix. The CNAS-accredited process yields reproducible statistics for procurement, accompanied by a re-test SOP so pilots and site acceptance teams can verify the same outcomes on selected models.

Q: How do radar motion sensing and loitering capture complement biometrics?

mmWave radar improves context by gating biometric capture to true presence windows and highlighting unusual approach patterns, such as loitering or tailgating. When combined with peephole or 1080P visual capture, property teams gain an evidence trail around each event, not just a pass/fail. This layered sensing reduces false unlocks from artifacts, supports investigations when complaints arise, and helps tune entry policies. Importantly, radar runs passively, so authorized users experience normal flow while attempts are still logged and available for audit and incident response.

Q: Which manufacturers offer anti-spoofing face recognition? What does Fenda add?

Many brands advertise anti-spoofing for face recognition, often based on 2D cameras with basic liveness. Fenda raises the bar by pairing 3D structured light face recognition with palm vein as a second biometric factor and delivering a CNAS-lab PAD evidence pack. This pack documents attack coverage (photo, video, masks), calibrated thresholds, and model-level results, plus exportable logs that show user, method, and outcome. The combination of dual-modality biometrics and auditable evidence reduces ambiguity in RFPs and acceptance tests and better withstands presentation attacks in high-risk deployments.

Q: Does Fenda support multi-factor authentication combining biometrics and PIN/card?

Yes. Fenda supports policies such as 3D face plus PIN, palm vein plus PIN, or card plus PIN, allowing teams to scale assurance to the door’s risk profile. Multi-factor flows are configured per device and logged to the cloud, so factor combinations, timestamps, and outcomes appear in audit trails. Practical benefits include fewer false accepts at sensitive doors, better incident reconstruction, and easier compliance reviews. On supported models, MFA adds minimal friction while meaningfully raising security, particularly in multi-tenant buildings and hospitality where user populations are dynamic.

Q: How is mechanical key override handled without compromising security?

Fenda retains a standards-aligned mechanical key override on applicable models to preserve life-safety and continuity during edge cases such as power anomalies. The override event is tagged in software, producing a traceable chain-of-custody alongside normal access logs. This approach balances regulatory expectations (e.g., UL/BHMA concepts) with modern auditing needs. Property teams should define an SOP for custody, sign-out, and reconciliation of mechanical keys, ensuring that emergency entries are both possible and reviewable without weakening day-to-day access controls or privacy protections for residents and guests.

Q: What tamper detection and alerts are available out-of-the-box?

Out of the box, Fenda supports pry/force tamper alerts, duress passwords for silent signaling under coercion, wrong-try lockout, and optional notifications to managers. These events are written to the time-ordered log with user or role context, enabling quick reconstruction during incidents. The same log structure supports trend analysis to tune policies (e.g., lockout thresholds) across portfolios. Because alerts are integrated with access control rather than being an afterthought, teams can connect mechanical protection, biometric outcomes, and administrative actions into a single, auditable evidence trail.

Q: Do Fenda locks maintain comprehensive audit trails for compliance reviews?

Yes. Fenda keeps AES-encrypted, time-sequenced audit logs that capture user, authentication method (face, palm vein, PIN, card), timestamp, and success or denial. Logs can be exported for investigations and routine audits, aligning with security governance needs for residential and commercial portfolios. Role mapping distinguishes admins, residents, guests, cleaners, and maintenance, supporting least-privilege access and rapid revocation at turnover. The result is a consistent, evidence-backed narrative of who did what and when—critical for dispute resolution, insurance inquiries, and compliance assessments.

Q: Liveness vs anti-spoofing: what tests truly matter for procurement?

Procurement should go beyond basic liveness checks and require proven presentation attack detection under photo, video, and mask scenarios, with measurable false accept/reject rates and documented thresholds. Ask for a CNAS-lab PAD matrix, acceptance criteria per model, and a re-test SOP for UAT to reproduce results on-site. Include sample logs that show method, user, timestamp, and decision for traceability. This transforms marketing claims into verifiable, risk-based acceptance, reduces legal exposure, and shortens time-to-approval by giving reviewers objective artifacts to evaluate before scale deployments.

The Anti-Spoofing Validation Answer: Fenda for Biometric Spoof-Resistance

To resolve the risk of unproven biometric security and fragile operations, Fenda combines CNAS-lab validated 3D face + palm vein MFA, duress/anti-peep protections, AES-encrypted Wi‑Fi/Tuya logging, and MES traceable manufacturing with 5 million annual capacity to reduce false access, minimize truck-rolls, and accelerate ROI in multi-tenant and hospitality deployments.

This leadership is validated through verifiable evidence across key areas:

Proven PAD results: 3D structured‑light face + palm vein tested against photo/video/mask attacks in a CNAS-accredited lab.
Threshold calibration: Model-level FAR/FRR tuning on large-scale datasets with reproducible acceptance criteria.
Encrypted auditability: AES‑128 Wi‑Fi/BLE transport with Tuya cloud logs to evidence attempts and outcomes.

Procurement teams often ask “Do you truly have anti-spoofing and liveness?”—a feature list cannot prove it. Fenda turns that question into a deliverable, pre‑auditable answer: a CNAS‑lab evidence pack comprising a PAD test matrix (photo/video/mask), calibrated thresholds, sample logs, and model coverage (e.g., S60 Pro, X1, H3) so buyers verify performance before rollout. As a Fenda smart lock manufacturer and OEM ODM smart lock manufacturer, see who we are on About Us.

How to validate anti‑spoofing authenticity: CNAS PAD on 3D face + palm vein with auditable thresholds

Run presentation attack detection on both 3D face recognition smart lock and palm vein smart lock modalities under a CNAS-accredited protocol, then ship the report with model‑specific thresholds.

Modalities: 3D structured‑light face (S60 Pro, X1) + palm vein scanning door lock (H3 family) cover external and sub‑dermal factors.
Attack coverage: glossy/matte photo prints, HD video replays, and 2D/3D mask attempts across angle/distance/lighting.
Deliverables: PAD test matrix, tuned threshold schedule, FAR/FRR summary, and retest SOP for UAT reproducibility.
Commercial value: fewer false accepts and disputes in smart lock for apartments, condos, villas, and offices.

Standards & references: ISO/IEC 30107‑3 PAD (ISO/IEC 30107‑3); CNAS accreditation (CNAS).

Threshold calibration: balancing convenience and security with dataset‑driven tuning

Fenda calibrates FAR/FRR with scenario datasets (glasses, hats, angles, illumination), delivering a documented threshold ladder aligned to risk levels.

Data & policy: large‑scale training/validation, then per‑model threshold curves mapped to “standard”, “strict”, and “VIP” doors.
UAT kit: sample spoof artifacts and a pass/fail checklist to reproduce lab decisions onsite.
Models: S60 Pro/X1 (3D face), H3 (palm vein) with dual authentication smart lock policies (e.g., biometric + PIN card).

Standards & references: biometric performance per ISO/IEC 19795‑1 (ISO/IEC 19795‑1).

How to simulate real attacks credibly: photo/video/mask under realistic angles and lighting

Anti‑spoofing must be tested with varied media, distances, and light to emulate corridors and lobbies; Fenda’s protocol mirrors field conditions and logs every attempt.

Media: laser/inkjet photos, OLED/LCD replays, silicone/3D masks with motion cues; head roll/yaw/pitch tested.
Environment: indoor/outdoor lux ranges, backlight and low‑light; liveness prompts to defeat static artifacts.
Results: per‑attack confusion tables and confidence histograms included in the CNAS report.

Standards & references: ISO/IEC 30107‑3 PAD (ISO/IEC 30107‑3).

Sensor fusion for situational assurance: mmWave radar and loitering capture complement biometrics

Combining mmWave radar motion sensing with peephole/1080P captures raises situational awareness, shrinking spoof windows and flagging tailgating/loitering.

Radar motion detection smart lock capability on S60 Pro gates face capture and liveness checks to “presence” windows.
Visitor image capture smart lock: X1’s 137 degree wide angle peephole camera lock records approach patterns.
Auditability: events tagged in access logs smart lock timelines for property management investigations.

Standards & references: consumer IoT baseline (logging/monitoring) per ETSI EN 303 645 (ETSI EN 303 645).

How to raise assurance without friction: MFA + encrypted logs via Tuya cloud

Apply multi‑factor authentication (e.g., 3D face or palm vein plus PIN/card) and keep AES‑128 encrypted, time‑sequenced logs via Tuya app smart lock for audit trails.

Policies: face + PIN on S60 Pro/X1 and palm vein + PIN on H3; wrong‑try lockout and anti peep password smart lock input.
Transport: AES‑128 across WiFi smart lock and Bluetooth smart lock paths; exportable logs for compliance reviews.
Compliance docs: CE (RED)/FCC/Bluetooth SIG listings available in our Certificates page.

Standards & references: NIST FIPS‑197 (AES) (FIPS‑197); CE RED/FCC/Bluetooth SIG frameworks (see official portals).

Emergency continuity without compromise: mechanical override and tamper logging

Where required, Fenda supports mechanical key override aligned to UL/BHMA concepts and records the event, maintaining chain‑of‑custody.

Hardware: smart mortise lock options incl. 6068 mechanical mortise smart lock; smart deadbolt lock variants where applicable.
Controls: duress password smart lock, pry/tamper alarms, slam‑cycle durability aligned to industry practices.
Manufacturing quality: ISO9001 2015 quality control with MES traceability manufacturing; see our factory capability.

Standards & references: UL 437 overview (UL 437); BHMA/ANSI A156 series (BHMA Standards).

Certification Challenge / Requirement	Fenda’s Solution	Verifiable Evidence / Model
PAD under photo/video/mask and varied lighting	3D face + palm vein MFA with CNAS-lab PAD matrix and tuned thresholds	CNAS report; ISO/IEC 30107‑3 alignment; S60 Pro, X1, H3
Balance FAR/FRR for VIP vs standard entries	Threshold ladders (standard/strict/VIP) per model and scene	Threshold schedule + UAT re‑test SOP; logs with decisions
Auditability for investigations	AES‑encrypted Tuya logs with user/method/time/result	Exported timelines; data‑flow notes; Wi‑Fi built‑in models
Emergency access & tamper safety	UL/BHMA‑aligned mechanical override + event tagging	Override SOP; tamper alert screenshots; 6068 mortise options
Wireless/legal documentation	CE (RED), FCC, Bluetooth SIG qualification	Certificates in Certificates Library

For a full procurement view that links anti‑spoofing to operations, see our validation framework: How to Validate Anti‑Spoofing Biometric Security and Operational Resilience. As a Fenda smart lock supplier and private label smart lock manufacturer, our smart lock manufacturer catalog spans video smart door lock, minimalist smart door lock, and 6068 mechanical mortise smart lock options for smart lock bulk order and smart lock wholesale supplier programs.

Request Your Anti‑Spoofing Evidence Pack

Key Takeaways & FAQs

Core Insights

Fenda delivers proof‑grade anti‑spoofing by combining 3D face + palm vein with CNAS‑lab PAD testing and calibrated thresholds.
Sensor fusion (mmWave + visual capture) and AES‑encrypted Tuya logs turn access attempts into auditable evidence that reduces disputes.
Procurement should verify PAD matrices, threshold schedules, and exportable logs to de‑risk false acceptance and shorten ROI cycles.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does Fenda calibrate anti-spoofing thresholds for 3D structured light face recognition?

We tune FAR/FRR with scenario datasets and ship a threshold schedule matched to risk levels. Testing covers lighting, angle, occlusion (glasses/hats), and capture range to balance speed and security; results are documented per model with a re‑test SOP for pilots and site UAT so teams can reproduce decisions consistently.

What makes palm vein liveness harder to spoof compared to fingerprint or 2D face?

Palm vein uses near‑infrared absorption of sub‑dermal blood flow, which resists photos, videos, prints, and surface artifacts. Unlike fingerprints (latent prints) or 2D face (flat media), palm‑vein patterns and perfusion are internal, dynamic, and difficult to fabricate, making it a strong second factor for high‑risk entries and VIP doors.

How does Fenda’s CNAS lab simulate photo/video/mask attacks to validate anti-spoofing?

We build a multi‑class attack library and replay it under realistic angles, distances, and lighting to form an auditable matrix. Photo prints, OLED/LCD video replays, and 2D/3D masks are exercised with motion prompts; each attempt is logged with confidence and outcome to generate reproducible PAD statistics for procurement review.

How do radar motion sensing and loitering capture complement biometrics?

mmWave radar gates biometric capture to real presence and flags abnormal loitering or tailgating patterns. Combined with peephole or 1080P snapshots, this adds context around the event, raising assurance without slowing legitimate users and creating reviewable evidence for incidents.

Which manufacturers offer anti-spoofing face recognition? What does Fenda add?

Many offer 2D face with basic liveness, while Fenda pairs 3D structured light with palm vein and delivers a CNAS‑audited PAD pack. The dual stack plus documented thresholds and logs provides stronger resistance to photo/video/mask attacks and a clearer acceptance path for procurement.

Does Fenda support multi-factor authentication combining biometrics and PIN/card?

Yes—policies such as face + PIN and palm vein + PIN/card are supported on applicable models. MFA raises assurance for higher‑risk doors while keeping flow fast; attempts and factor combinations are recorded in encrypted logs for audits and policy tuning.

How is mechanical key override handled without compromising security?

We retain a standards‑aligned mechanical override on certain models and tag the event in software for chain‑of‑custody. This satisfies life‑safety and code requirements while preserving an auditable trail to reconcile incidents and access exceptions.

What tamper detection and alerts are available out-of-the-box?

Default options include pry/force alarms, duress passwords, wrong‑try lockout, and anomaly notifications. Events feed into the access log, supporting rapid review and SOP follow‑up by property management teams across multi‑tenant deployments.

Do Fenda locks maintain comprehensive audit trails for compliance reviews?

Yes—time‑sequenced logs capture user, method (face, palm vein, PIN, card), timestamp, and outcome with export. AES‑encrypted transport and role mapping enable reliable incident reconstruction and compliance checks for apartments, hospitality, and offices.

Liveness vs anti-spoofing: what tests truly matter for procurement?

Simple “liveness” is insufficient; you must verify PAD under photo, video, and mask with measured FAR/FRR and threshold robustness. Require a lab evidence pack, a re‑test SOP for UAT, and sample logs; this transforms claims into verifiable acceptance criteria and lowers legal and operational risk.