REVIEW 2 cited by
A Comparative Usability Study of Two-Factor Authentication
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
The House That Knows You: User Authentication Based on IoT Data
A gradient-boosting ensemble using aggregated HTTPS header features from 15 IoT devices classifies five lab users with 0.97 F1 when both models agree.
-
Evaluating User Perception of Multi-Factor Authentication: A Systematic Review
Only 9.1% of 2018 multi-factor authentication papers evaluated users, and the 57 user studies that exist show recruitment bias, missing demographics, and inconsistent reporting.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.