Author(s): Kaczmarek, T; Kobsa, A; Sy, R; Tsudik, G | Abstract: User errors while performing security-critical tasks can lead to undesirable or even disastrous consequences. One major factor influencing mistakes and failures is complexity of such tasks, which has been studied extensively in prior research. Another important issue which hardly received any attention is the impact of both accidental and intended distractions on users performing security-critical tasks. In particular, it is unclear whether, and to what extent, unexpected sensory cues (e.g., auditory or visual) can influence user behavior and or trigger mistakes. Better understanding of the effects of intended distractions will help clarify their role in adversarial models. As part of the research effort described in this paper, we administered a range of naturally occurring -- yet unexpected -- sounds while study participants attempted to perform a security-critical task. We found that, although these auditory cues lowered participants' failure rates, they had no discernible effect on their task completion times. To this end, we overview some relevant literature that explains these somewhat counter-intuitive findings. Conducting a thorough and meaningful study on user errors requires a large number of participants, since errors are typically infrequent and should not be instigated more than once per subject. To reduce the effort of running numerous subjects, we developed a novel experimental setup that was fully automated and unattended. We discuss our experience with this setup and highlight the pros and cons of generalizing its usage.
@cite_7 reported on a comprehensive comparative usability study of eleven major secure device pairing methods, measuring task performance times, task completion rates, perceived security and perceived usability. The main outcome was the grouping of the investigated methods into three clusters, following a principal components analysis.
@cite_7
2148165512 15257636 2096768518 2019380907
Secure Device Pairing is the bootstrapping of secure communication between two previously unassociated devices over a wireless channel. The human-imperceptible nature of wireless communication, lack of any prior security context, and absence of a common trust infrastructure open the door for Man-in-the-Middle (aka Evil Twin) attacks. A number of methods have been proposed to mitigate these attacks, each requiring user assistance in authenticating information exchanged over the wireless channel via some human-perceptible auxiliary channels, e.g., visual, acoustic or tactile. In this paper, we present results of the first comprehensive and comparative study of eleven notable secure device pairing methods. Usability measures include: task performance times, ratings on System Usability Scale (SUS), task completion rates, and perceived security. Study subjects were controlled for age, gender and prior experience with device pairing. We present overall results and identify problematic methods for certain classes of users as well as methods best-suited for various device configurations. We explore the use of extrinsic motivation to improve the state of user-centered security mechanisms. Specifically, we study applications of scores as user incentives in the context of secure device pairing. We develop a scoring functionality that can be integrated with traditional pairing approaches. We then report on a usability study that we performed to evaluate the effect of scoring on the performance of users in comparison operations. Our results demonstrate that individuals are likely to commit fewer errors and show more acceptance when working with the scoring based pairing approach. Framing pairing as a game and providing feedback to users in the form of a score is an efficient way to improve pairing security, particularly among users such as children who may not be aware of the consequences of their decisions while performing security tasks. A fairly common modern setting entails users, each in possession of a personal wireless device, wanting to communicate securely, via their devices. If these users (and their devices) have no prior association, a new security context must be established. In order to prevent potential attacks, the initial context (association) establishment process must involve only the intended devices and their users. A number of methods for initial secure association of two devices have been proposed; their usability factors have been explored and compared extensively. However, a more challenging problem of initial secure association of a group of devices (and users) has not received much attention. Although a few secure group association methods have been proposed, their usability aspects have not been studied, especially, in a comparative manner. This paper discusses desirable features and evaluation criteria for secure group association, identifies suitable methods and presents a comparative usability study. Results show that some simple methods (e.g., peer- or leader-based number comparisons) are quite attractive for small groups, being fast, reasonably secure and well-received by users. This paper describes an experiment to investigate user perceptions of the usability and security of single-factor and two-factor authentication methods in automated telephone banking. In a controlled experiment with 62 banking customers a knowledge-based, single-factor authentication procedure, based on those commonly used in the financial services industry, was compared with a two-factor approach where in addition to the knowledge-based step, a one-time passcode was generated using a hardware security token. Results were gathered on the usability and perceived security of the two methods described, together with call completion rates and call durations for the two methods. Significant differences were found between the two methods, with the two-factor version being perceived as offering higher levels of security than the single-factor authentication version; however, this gain was offset by significantly lower perceptions of usability, and lower ratings for convenience and ease of use for the two-factor version. In addition, the two-factor authentication version took longer for participants to complete. This research provides valuable empirical evidence of the trade-off between security and usability in automated systems.