The Achilles' heel of SASV: A module-level comparative analysis of adversarial vulnerabilities


Abstract

Spoofing-aware speaker verification systems combine automatic speaker verification and spoofing countermeasure modules to defend against spoofing attacks. However, their vulnerability to adversarial attacks remains largely unexplored. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study that investigates how perturbations targeting each module individually affect overall system integrity. Notably, attackers may substantially compromise the entire system by targeting only a single module, highlighting the need to understand module-specific vulnerabilities. Through extensive experiments across six representative system architectures and three adversarial attack methods under both white-box and black-box scenarios, we uncover critical insights into the adversarial robustness of spoofing-aware speaker verification, bridging an important knowledge gap. Our findings identify the speaker verification module as the Achilles' heel of such systems, and offer new directions for developing next-generation solutions that provide stronger protection not only against spoofing attacks but also adversarial threats, ultimately enhancing the robustness of voice authentication in real-world security scenarios.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].