Two-factor authentication (2F) aims to enhance resilience of password-based authentication by requiring users to provide an additional authentication factor, e.g., a code generated by a security token. However, it also introduces non-negligible costs for service providers and requires users to carry out additional actions during the authentication process. In this paper, we present an exploratory comparative study of the usability of 2F technologies. First, we conduct a pre-study interview to identify popular technologies as well as contexts and motivations in which they are used. We then present the results of a quantitative study based on a survey completed by 219 Mechanical Turk users, aiming to measure the usability of three popular 2F solutions: codes generated by security tokens, one-time PINs received via email or SMS, and dedicated smartphone apps (e.g., Google Authenticator). We record contexts and motivations, and study their impact on perceived usability. We find that 2F technologies are overall perceived as usable, regardless of motivation and or context of use. We also present an exploratory factor analysis, highlighting that three metrics -- ease-of-use, required cognitive efforts, and trustworthiness -- are enough to capture key factors affecting 2F usability.
Although not directly related to our 2F study, we will use in our factor analysis some metrics introduced in the context of password replacements @cite_0 and password managers @cite_6 .
@cite_0 @cite_6
2030112111 1540780277
We evaluate two decades of proposals to replace text passwords for general-purpose user authentication on the web using a broad set of twenty-five usability, deployability and security benefits that an ideal scheme might provide. The scope of proposals we survey is also extensive, including password management software, federated login protocols, graphical password schemes, cognitive authentication schemes, one-time passwords, hardware tokens, phone-aided schemes and biometrics. Our comprehensive approach leads to key insights about the difficulty of replacing passwords. Not only does no known scheme come close to providing all desired benefits: none even retains the full set of benefits that legacy passwords already provide. In particular, there is a wide range from schemes offering minor security benefits beyond legacy passwords, to those offering significant security benefits in return for being more costly to deploy or more difficult to use. We conclude that many academic proposals have failed to gain traction because researchers rarely consider a sufficiently wide range of real-world constraints. Beyond our analysis of current schemes, our framework provides an evaluation methodology and benchmark for future web authentication proposals. Proposed in response to the growing number of passwords users have to memorize, password managers allow to store one's credentials, either on a third-party server (online password manager), or on a portable device (portable password manager) such as a mobile phone or a USB key. In this paper, we present a comparative usability study of three popular password managers: an online manager (LastPass), a phone manager (KeePassMobile) and a USB manager (Roboform2Go). Our study provides valuable insights on average users' perception of security and usability of the three password management approaches. We find, contrary to our intuition, that users overall prefer the two portable managers over the online manager, despite the better usability of the latter. Also, surprisingly, our non-technical pool of users shows a strong inclination towards the phone manager. These findings can generally be credited to the fact that the users were not comfortable giving control of their passwords to an online entity and preferred to manage their passwords themselves on their own portable devices. Our results prompt the need for research on developing user-friendly and secure phone managers, owing to the ubiquity of mobile phones.