Re: working on re-authentication

Hi Lisa, Alastair, and all,

In the third bullet is the adverb "reliably" needed? If not, perhaps
we could consider cutting it to "produce gestures" or simply
"gesture".

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 12/20/17, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I agree we should be able to answer those, I just updated the wiki page and
> I think this version helps:
> ————-
> Re-authentication processes do not rely upon the user to do any of the
> following:
>
> - memorize information;
> - perform calculations;
> - reliably produce gestures;
> - transcribe information.
>
> Exceptions:
>
> - Re-authentication process can rely on the user or user-agent entering
> personal identification information such as name, username, address, email
> address or national identification number if the web content does not block
> automatic entry.
>
> - There are governing statutory requirements that require the use of
> memorisation, calculations, gestures or transcription in re-authentication
> processes.
> —————
>
> On your questions:
>> 1. Regarding user’s abilities to memorize information, don’t browser/OS
>> capabilities or separate tools (e.g. splash ID, LastPass, etc)
>
> I think the first exception covers that now, and yes, I think we need to
> except that is a user-agent & education issue rather than content, so long
> as content doesn’t prevent their use (which is also accepted security best
> practice, despite certain banks thinking otherwise).
>
>> Regarding the ability to transcribe information, this includes:
>
> Anything where you see/hear characters and have to type them in somewhere.
>
>> Regarding the ability to transcribe information, what kind of barrier does
>> this create for users – is it a complete barrier or something less? In one
>> of the current options it seems that transcribing a one-time code is ok
>> for the first time – why is it not a barrier the first time but is a
>> barrier after that?
>
> In usability testing, which wasn’t exactly on this, but close as we gave
> people made-up information to type in as part of usability testing, it can
> take 5-10 seconds per character, if they are patient and motivated. The
> typical time-based-one time code is 6 characters to type in within 30
> seconds.
>
> We can discuss degree, but personally I’ve seen enough to know it is a real
> issue and any transcription will prevent some people from completing that
> task.
>
> I don’t think we were saying some transcription is ok the 1st time, but that
> you could set/reset your password? Not sure where that came from. In the
> above SC text you can:
> - rely on a password manager so long as you don’t block it.
> - use a magic-link or email loop password reset.
> - use webauth for 2nd factor.
>
>> It seems that there is a possible conflict with 1.1.1. In that SC there is
>> language about using CAPTCHA, which is sometimes used as part of an
>> authentication process.
>
> *Generally* I’ve seen it used in account creation rather than
> authentication, but I guess that can happen.
>
>> It seems that providing a multi-modal approach which uses but doesn’t rely
>> exclusively on visual CAPTCHA is ok under 1.1.1 but may be forbidden in
>> this SC?
>
> Yes, as that involves transcription (which can be either visual or auditory,
> I don’t think we can discriminate here ;-)
>
> So I think it prevents CAPTCHA for being used for re-authentication, but not
> account creation or authenticating the 1st time in a browser. I think there
> is good argument for that, as CAPTCHA should not be used if you have already
> proven you’re not a robot.
>
> The current 2.0 SC is still useful for the multi-model aspect.
>
>> Are there examples of sites that currently pass the proposed SC language
>> without relying on the exceptions?
>
> Yes, in the above form just having a username/password is fine. If you block
> pasting then you’d need to provide an email alternative.
> With second factor it gets more difficult, as you need to off-load the 2nd
> factor onto an OS/hardware device, which Chrome supports now, and others
> support soon. As Chrome supports webauth now I assume there are some google
> sites which support it, and as it can be used as an alternative method (e.g.
> time-based code OR webauth), I’m sure we can find some.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
> PS. The 10 years of listening to security podcasts are finally coming in
> useful!
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson