FRR AND FAR INDICATORS AS CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE RELIABILITY OF BIOMETRIC METHODS

DOI: 10.31673/2409-7292.2025.017582

Abstract

In the context of growing threats to information security, in particular unauthorized access to critical objects, modern
organizations are faced with the challenge of choosing and implementing reliable solutions for personal identification. Biometric
technologies provide a number of important advantages, including high accuracy and speed, at the same time, choosing the most
suitable biometric solution for a specific organization or performing a certain function is not an easy task and requires a thorough
evaluation of various biometric methods.
It has been established that the main criteria for evaluating biometric methods are universality, uniqueness, constancy,
measurability, availability, convenience and ease of use, the probability of falsification, the cost of installing and operating the
technology, etc. In the context of information security, an important factor in choosing a biometric solution is its reliability, the
main criteria for evaluating which are the false rejection rate (FRR) and false admission rate (FAR).
The study showed that the lower the value of both indicators, the higher the reliability of the biometric method: a low
FRR level indicates a more reliable and convenient biometric system, and a low FAR indicator indicates a higher level of its
security. At the same time, the implementation of a reliable biometric system with low FAR and FRR indicators is more
expensive. It was found that biometric methods have significant differences in both indicators.
As a result of comparing the most popular biometric methods (based on fingerprints, face and hand geometry, voice;
iris) by such factors as FRR and FAR, probability of falsification, stability, sensitivity to the environment, speed of operation,
simplicity and cost, it was found that the best indicators are achieved by iris identification methods, 3D face recognition and
fingerprints.
Keywords: biometric identification methods, biometric method evaluation criteria, false rejection rate FRR, false access
rate FAR.

References
1. Preferred ways to sign-in to online accounts, apps, and smart devices in selected countries in 2024. Statista.
URL: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1448883/preferred-security-authentication-methods-in-selected-countries/
2. Milan Adámek, Miroslav Matýsek, Petr Neumann. Security of Biometric Systems 2015. URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705815003823
3. Wencheng Yang, Song Wang, Jiankun Hu, Zheng Guanglou. Security and Accuracy of Fingerprint-Based
Biometrics: A Review 2019. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330711092_Security_and_Accuracy_
of_Fingerprint-Based_Biometrics_A_Review
4. Manal Abdullah, Majda Wazzan, Sahar Busaeed. Optimizing Face Recognition Using PCA. 2012. URL:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225279599_Optimizing_Face_Recognition_Using_PCA
5. Ziaul Haque Choudhury. Biometrics security based on face recognition. 2013. URL:
https://bsaulibrary.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/2013-biometrics-security-based-on-face-recognition.pdf
6. Anil K. Jain, Arun Ross, S. Pankanti. Biometrics: a tool for information security. 2006. URL:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3455239_Biometrics_a_tool_for_information_security_IEEE_Tran_Inform_F
orensics_Secur
7. Reetu Awasthi, R.A.Ingolikar. A Study Of Biometrics Security System. 2013. URL:
https://www.internationaljournalcorner.com/index.php/ijird_ojs/article/view/133344/92551
8. Mohamad El-Abed Christophe Charrier Christophe Rosenberger. Evaluation of Biometric Systems. 2012.
URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257365353_Evaluation_of_Biometric_Systems
9. Babita Gupta. Biometrics: Enhancing Security in Organizations. IBM Center for The Business of Government.
2008. URL: https://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/GuptaReport.pdf
10. Олешко І. В. Порівняльний аналіз методів автентифікації з відбитку пальця. Харків: ХНУРЕ, 2011.
URL: https://openarchive.nure.ua/server/api/core/bitstreams/9f8b266f-7783-43f0-9b46-dfacc92f7ee1/content
11. Олешко І. В. Моделі та методи оцінки захищеності механізмів багатофакторної автентифікації від
несанкціонованого доступу: Автореферат дисертації на здобуття наукового ступеня кандидата технічних наук.
Харків : ХНУРЕ, 2014. 126 с.
12. Бугаєнко Х. А., Горбенко І. Д. Аналіз трьох біометричних методів автентифікації особи: наук.-техн.
журнал. Харків : ХНУРЕ, 2012. 266 с.
13. Безрук В.М., Кобцева В.М. Порівняння методів біометричної автентифікації за сукупними
показниками якості. Харків: ХНУРЕ. URL: https://openarchive.nure.ua/server/api/core/bitstreams/af6afb36-6ddd425f-be72-c0dfdcde5efd/content
14. Скорик Ю., Безрук В. Вибір переважного методу біометричної автентифікації. International Science
Journal of Engineering & Agriculture. 2023. № 2(4). С. 28-34.
15. Луцків А. М., Крутиголова О. І. Критерії вибору систем біометричної автентифікації. Тернопіль: ТНТУ
ім. І. Пулюя, 2016. URL: https://elartu.tntu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/20215/2/ConfATMT_2016vII_Lutskiv_A_MSelection_criteria_of_biometric_71-72.pdf
16. FAR and FRR: security level versus ease of use Recogtech. Recogtech. URL:
https://recogtech.com/en/insights-en/far-and-frr-security-level-versus-ease-of-use/
17. False Acceptance Rate (FAR) and False Recognition Rate (FRR) in Biometrics. Bayometric. URL:
https://www.bayometric.com/false-acceptance-rate-far-false-recognition-rate-frr/
18. What you need to know about FRR and FAR. Cursor Insight. URL: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whatyou-need-know-frr-far-cursor-insight/
19. ДСТУ 2860-94 Надійність техніки. Терміни та визначення. URL:
https://dbn.co.ua/load/normativy/dstu/dstu_2860_94_nadijnist_tekhniki_termini_ta_viznachennja/5-1-0-1209
20. Eduardo Garcia. Has COVID-19 monitoring changed how UK consumers feel about sharing biometric data?
Capterra. URL: https://www.capterra.co.uk/blog/2715/covid-monitoring-and-biometric-data-uk-consumers