Biblio

Many authentication schemes ask users to manually compare compact representations of cryptographic keys, known as fingerprints. If the fingerprints do not match, that may signal a man-in-the-middle attack. An adversary performing an attack may use a fingerprint that is similar to the target fingerprint, but not an exact match, to try to fool inattentive users. Fingerprint representations should thus be both usable and secure. We tested the usability and security of eight fingerprint representations under different configurations. In a 661-participant between-subjects experiment, participants compared fingerprints under realistic conditions and were subjected to a simulated attack. The best configuration allowed attacks to succeed 6% of the time; the worst 72%. We find the seemingly effective compare-and-select approach performs poorly for key fingerprints and that graphical fingerprint representations, while intuitive and fast, vary in performance. We identify some fingerprint representations as particularly promising.

The Security Behavior Observatory (SBO) is a longitudinal field-study of computer security habits that provides a novel dataset for validating computer security metrics. This paper demonstrates a new strategy for validating phishing detection ability metrics by comparing performance on a phishing signal detection task with data logs found in the SBO. We report: (1) a test of the robustness of performance on the signal detection task by replicating Canfield, Fischhoff and Davis (2016), (2) an assessment of the task's construct validity, and (3) evaluation of its predictive validity using data logs. We find that members of the SBO sample had similar signal detection ability compared to members of the previous mTurk sample and that performance on the task correlated with the Security Behavior Intentions Scale (SeBIS). However, there was no evidence of predictive validity, as the signal detection task performance was unrelated to computer security outcomes in the SBO, including the presence of malicious URLs, malware, and malicious files. We discuss the implications of these findings and the challenges of comparing behavior on structured experimental tasks to behavior in complex real-world settings.