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.
We present a usability study of two recent password manager proposals: PwdHash (, 2005) and Password Multiplier (, 2005). Both papers considered usability issues in greater than typical detail, the former briefly reporting on a small usability study; both also provided implementations for download. Our study involving 26 users found that both proposals suffer from major usability problems. Some of these are not "simply" usability issues, but rather lead directly to security exposures. Not surprisingly, we found the most significant problems arose from users having inaccurate or incomplete mental models of the software. Our study revealed many interesting misunderstandings D for example, users reporting a task as easy even when unsuccessful at completing that task; and believing their passwords were being strengthened when in fact they had failed to engage the appropriate protection mechanism. Our findings also suggested that ordinary users would be reluctant to optin to using these managers: users were uncomfortable with "relinquishing control" of their passwords to a manager, did not feel that they needed the password managers, or that the managers provided greater security. 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.