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.
Password meters tell users whether their passwords are "weak" or "strong." We performed a laboratory experiment to examine whether these meters influenced users' password selections when they were forced to change their real passwords, and when they were not told that their passwords were the subject of a study. We observed that the presence of meters yielded significantly stronger passwords. We performed a followup field experiment to test a different scenario: creating a password for an unimportant account. In this scenario, we found that the meters made no observable difference: participants simply reused weak passwords that they used to protect similar low-risk accounts. We conclude that meters result in stronger passwords when users are forced to change existing passwords on "important" accounts and that individual meter design decisions likely have a marginal impact. Text-based passwords are the most common mechanism for authenticating humans to computer systems. To prevent users from picking passwords that are too easy for an adversary to guess, system administrators adopt password-composition policies (e.g., requiring passwords to contain symbols and numbers). Unfortunately, little is known about the relationship between password-composition policies and the strength of the resulting passwords, or about the behavior of users (e.g., writing down passwords) in response to different policies. We present a large-scale study that investigates password strength, user behavior, and user sentiment across four password-composition policies. We characterize the predictability of passwords by calculating their entropy, and find that a number of commonly held beliefs about password composition and strength are inaccurate. We correlate our results with user behavior and sentiment to produce several recommendations for password-composition policies that result in strong passwords without unduly burdening users.