-
"We've Disabled MFA for You": An Evaluation of the Security and Usability of Multi-Factor Authentication Recovery Deployments
Authors:
Sabrina Amft,
Sandra Höltervennhoff,
Nicolas Huaman,
Alexander Krause,
Lucy Simko,
Yasemin Acar,
Sascha Fahl
Abstract:
Multi-Factor Authentication is intended to strengthen the security of password-based authentication by adding another factor, such as hardware tokens or one-time passwords using mobile apps. However, this increased authentication security comes with potential drawbacks that can lead to account and asset loss. If users lose access to their additional authentication factors for any reason, they will…
▽ More
Multi-Factor Authentication is intended to strengthen the security of password-based authentication by adding another factor, such as hardware tokens or one-time passwords using mobile apps. However, this increased authentication security comes with potential drawbacks that can lead to account and asset loss. If users lose access to their additional authentication factors for any reason, they will be locked out of their accounts. Consequently, services that provide Multi-Factor Authentication should deploy procedures to allow their users to recover from losing access to their additional factor that are both secure and easy-to-use. In this work, we investigate the security and user experience of Multi-Factor Authentication recovery procedures, and compare their deployment to descriptions on help and support pages. We first evaluate the official help and support pages of 1,303 websites that provide Multi-Factor Authentication and collect documented information about their recovery procedures. Second, we select a subset of 71 websites, create accounts, set up Multi-Factor Authentication, and perform an in-depth investigation of their recovery procedure security and user experience. We find that many websites deploy insecure Multi-Factor Authentication recovery procedures and allowed us to circumvent and disable Multi-Factor Authentication when having access to the accounts' associated email addresses. Furthermore, we commonly observed discrepancies between our in-depth analysis and the official help and support pages, implying that information meant to aid users is often either incorrect or outdated. Based on our findings, we provide recommendations for best practices regarding Multi-Factor Authentication recovery.
△ Less
Submitted 19 September, 2023; v1 submitted 16 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Committed by Accident: Studying Prevention and Remediation Strategies Against Secret Leakage in Source Code Repositories
Authors:
Alexander Krause,
Jan H. Klemmer,
Nicolas Huaman,
Dominik Wermke,
Yasemin Acar,
Sascha Fahl
Abstract:
Version control systems for source code, such as Git, are key tools in modern software development environments. Many developers use online services, such as GitHub or GitLab, for collaborative software development. While software projects often require code secrets to work, such as API keys or passwords, they need to be handled securely within the project. Previous research and news articles have…
▽ More
Version control systems for source code, such as Git, are key tools in modern software development environments. Many developers use online services, such as GitHub or GitLab, for collaborative software development. While software projects often require code secrets to work, such as API keys or passwords, they need to be handled securely within the project. Previous research and news articles have illustrated that developers are blameworthy of committing code secrets, such as private encryption keys, passwords, or API keys, accidentally to public source code repositories. However, making secrets publicly available might have disastrous consequences, such as leaving systems vulnerable to attacks. In a mixed-methods study, we surveyed 109 developers and conducted 14 in-depth semi-structured interviews with developers which experienced secret leakage in the past. We find that 30.3% of our participants have encountered secret leakage in the past, and that developers are facing several challenges with secret leakage prevention and remediation. Based on our findings, we discuss challenges, e. g., estimating risks of leaked secrets, and needs of developers in remediating and preventing code secret leaks, e. g., low adoption requirements. We also give recommendations for developers and source code platform providers to reduce the risk of secret leakage.
△ Less
Submitted 14 November, 2022; v1 submitted 11 November, 2022;
originally announced November 2022.
-
A Large Scale Investigation of Obfuscation Use in Google Play
Authors:
Dominik Wermke,
Nicolas Huaman,
Yasemin Acar,
Brad Reaves,
Patrick Traynor,
Sascha Fahl
Abstract:
Android applications are frequently plagiarized or repackaged, and software obfuscation is a recommended protection against these practices. However, there is very little data on the overall rates of app obfuscation, the techniques used, or factors that lead to developers to choose to obfuscate their apps. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive analysis of the use of and challenges to s…
▽ More
Android applications are frequently plagiarized or repackaged, and software obfuscation is a recommended protection against these practices. However, there is very little data on the overall rates of app obfuscation, the techniques used, or factors that lead to developers to choose to obfuscate their apps. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive analysis of the use of and challenges to software obfuscation in Android applications. We analyzed 1.7 million free Android apps from Google Play to detect various obfuscation techniques, finding that only 24.92% of apps are obfuscated by the developer. To better understand this rate of obfuscation, we surveyed 308 Google Play developers about their experiences and attitudes about obfuscation. We found that while developers feel that apps in general are at risk of plagiarism, they do not fear theft of their own apps. Developers also self-report difficulties applying obfuscation for their own apps. To better understand this, we conducted a follow-up study where the vast majority of 70 participants failed to obfuscate a realistic sample app even while many mistakenly believed they had been successful. Our findings show that more work is needed to make obfuscation tools more usable, to educate developers on the risk of their apps being reverse engineered, their intellectual property stolen, their apps being repackaged and redistributed as malware and to improve the health of the overall Android ecosystem.
△ Less
Submitted 20 February, 2018; v1 submitted 8 January, 2018;
originally announced January 2018.
