Study Finds Bank of America SiteKey is Flawed 335
An anonymous reader writes "The NYT reports on a Harvard and MIT study, which finds that the SiteKey authentication system employed by Bank of America is ineffective at prevent phishing attacks. SiteKey requires users to preselect an image and to recognize this image before they login, but users don't comply. 'The idea is that if customers do not see their image, they could be at a fraudulent Web site, dummied up to look like their bank's, and should not enter their passwords.
The Harvard and M.I.T. researchers tested that hypothesis. In October, they brought 67 Bank of America customers in the Boston area into a controlled environment and asked them to conduct routine online banking activities, like looking up account balances. But the researchers had secretly withdrawn the images.
Of 60 participants who got that far into the study and whose results could be verified, 58 entered passwords anyway. Only two chose not to log on, citing security concerns.' The study, aptly entitled "The Emperor's New Security Indicators", is available online."
This could be solved... (Score:5, Insightful)
Newflash! (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like most security systems based on users not being idiots are doomed to fail. Phishing attacks work because people don't follow normal security procedures, making the authentication process longer/more involved for the user seems to be an inherently flawed idea because it trusts the user to know what is best for him/her.
Sensationalist headline... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:2, Insightful)
meh - controlled environment? (Score:5, Insightful)
2. sign an agreement form,
3. follow instructions that say: "Log into your account"
4. you're aware that people are watching you and will analyze what you did
whatever results they get do not prove anything other than:
People placed in a unfamiliar, controlled environment with Harvard scientists ogling at them will not check the security image.
h
It works for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
The BofA login is helpful to me, I fully expect to see my login token when I login to my account and would not login if I didn't see it. Some people won't pay attention and there isn't ANYTHING that BofA could do to prevent that (that isn't outrageously inconvinient for me.)
SiteKey is not to protect customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Study concept seems lacking (Score:1, Insightful)
I am going to bring 60 people into a room, present food to them and tell them to try it, and then publish a study about how they failed to notice the lack of a Health Department certificate in my building. Then I'm going to write into Slashdot about it.
In my mind, there is a better way to conduct a study about banking security than to bring in 60 people and instruct them that the entire purpose of their visit is to log in to their bank account when they sit down.
But I, for one, welcome our SiteKey overlords.
Re:meh - controlled environment? (Score:3, Insightful)
People are not "Flawed" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, go forth and design systems that work, instead of blaming your design failure on the user.
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Newflash! (Score:5, Insightful)
On a website all it needs is an official looking statement at the top of the phishing page that says "We are sorry, but our image security is broken just now, please log in as normal while we fix it, thank you." People are used to being told that computer systems are down and they should manage as best they can while they're repaired.
You simply can't regulate for people not willing to think for themselves.
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, it's clear, but I fear users are oblivious. That's why Vista's annoying security notifications will not be as effective MS would like them to be.
"Yes, quit bothering me. How do I turn that off? Let me google it."
Re:Sensationalist headline... (Score:5, Insightful)
People are, by definition, flawed. Any security system that is predicated on this changing sometime soon is broken.
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I'd suggest 'if you read this and believe this in any way makes you safe from phising you should take your banking offline'.
This scheme is worthless. Once the user enters his username the bank discloses the picture. There's nothing stopping a phishing site or trojan from immediately using the username to obtain the correct picture and displaying it to the user. IE, the explaining text should say 'if you recognize your SiteKey you still have no idea wether or not it's safe to enter your passcode'.
Whoever thought this up obviously missed a few computer security classes.
"It's the users, not the system!" syndrome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many systems require you to change your password once a month or more often. Of course, the password must not be based on an English word and must contain both uppercase and lowercase letters and digits. Is it then a user failure when every other user forgets their password? No! It is the system that is faulty.
Therefore Bank of Americas system is faulty, most password based systems are infact faulty. It is not an acceptable excuse to put the burden on the user. It is a cop out. We are techies, we should make stuff work. It is our job.
Lack of explanation, and technically poor. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, like most Slashdot readers, I'm a tech guy, but I didn't know what they were trying to do. My GUESS was that they were going to have me enter in the caption each time I logged in as a sort of separate password. It wasn't until I read some news article about it much later that I understood what the point of it was. I can't imagine your average user would have any idea either.
But, lack of explanation aside, the 'solution' is technically useless as well. So when I go to log in you display a picture and I have to not enter my password if my picture doesn't show up. but *ANYONE* trying to log in gets to see that picture. So all you've done is add a little work for the phishing site - when they're pretending to be the bank, they just have to go to BoA's site and start your login process and Bank of America will kindly display the picture that the phishing site needs to show you to make you think the phishing site is legitimate. If anything, this makes the phishing site look *MORE* legitimate. "Well, this site looks fishy, but it's got my photo, so there must not be a problem."
Yahoo has a better system - they show you a captcha you've picked, and they explain what it is, AND they only show it to you if you're logging in from a computer you've registered to see the captcha. Doesn't help you when you're not at your home computer, but works for most people most of the time and is thus an improvement without any drawbacks.
Biased sample? (Score:5, Insightful)
The few that did participate where either excessively trusting or clueless, making them more likely to not worry about the missing image either.
In a word, they used a biased sample.
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People are not "Flawed" (Score:2, Insightful)
My point is that I doubt very much that you understand the inner workings of your car. If you do any work on it, then it is through a procedure manual that includes all the troubleshoot steps for you, and at no point do you really understand the whole system.
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:3, Insightful)
If a patient abuses a drug, or refuses to take the full course of drugs (in, say, a case of TB), is that the doctor's fault? There is only so much that a professional can do to mitigate against the stupidity of an end user. Perhaps password authentication is flawed, but I don't see you proposing a better solution. Perhaps BofA's system is fundamentally flawed, but I don't see you offering anything else. Regardless, at some point it is up to the user to protect their own interests by not taking 30 sleeping pills at a time, or giving out their passwords to other people.
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more. People don't read. After our focus groups preceeding a recent launch, it was explained to me by a marketing fellow that we needed to explain a process and provide instructions for something that was already explained - in plain view.
The Marketing Guy: We need to provide instructions about >
Me: You mean THESE instructions (pointing to the paragraph clearly notated "Instructions")
The Marketing Guy: Hrm...maybe we should make that in all red.
It's a common problem with website users in general. They don't read. They just look for things in red, or pictures to click, or forms to fill in and rely on the system to catch mistakes for them and warn them.
That's not going to change anytime soon. Maybe a better approach to the problem would be for BOFA to make a random phishing attempt on their customers and when fooled, the customer would get the ole'
The system encountered an error, when you entered your FUCKING BANKING PASSWORD INTO A NON BOFA site. Please come back when you're not a complete dolt.
What else can they do?
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:1, Insightful)
Whoever thought this up obviously missed a few computer security classes.
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The study attempted to control for this by telling one of the three groups that the purpose of the study was to test security awareness."
Exactly. That is my point, the people knew_they_were_part_of_a_study, and may have reacted differently to how they would normally.
I recall reading about a study (here on
Re:Flawed system or flawed usage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it. If I answer the questions truthfully, then a determined attacker would most likely be able to find out the answer to them through some means or another. If i answer the questions untruthfully then I now have to essentially remember 5 different passwords. Doable for one site, but the difficulty rises quickly if I have more than one site like this.
Never mind the fact that answers to the questions don't have to be of the same strength as a Password. (eg. I can answer with only 4 letters but a password would have to have 8 letters and 1 number or something)
I think its good that banks want to make their sites secure, but they way the have gone about it lately has started to get to me. It hasn't made anything more secure (I feel less secure) but it has made it much more difficult for me to get to my own information.
I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not clear to me how you could fix the experiment to avoid OTA behavior overriding and destroying your actual data.
Re:People are not "Flawed" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Inherent flaw in studies of this type: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody with a CLUE about online security would participate in such a study.
As for the two groups who were not using accounts set up for the purpose: They would be unfamiliar with the account settings, have no personal stake in the results, and could be expected to try to bull through anything seen as a "bug" in order to perform the assigned task.
Unless explicitly informed that this was a test of the security features and that refusing to log in if suspicious was an option they would be expected to breeze past the login to get to the meat of the transaction - even if they wouldn't do so if this were their own account in their own normal life. Yet such an instruction would alert them at login time, biasing the test in another fashion. (Meanwhile, "behave securely" doesn't cut it for such a notice. Indeed, it would give them more to distract them during the experiment.)