Pitfalls in Designing Zero-Effort Deauthentication: Opportunistic Human Observation Attacks

Deauthentication is an important component of any authentication system. The widespread use of computing devices in daily life has underscored the need for zero-effort deauthentication schemes. However, the quest for eliminating user effort may lead to hidden security flaws in the authentication sch...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Huhta, O, Shrestha, P, Udar, S, Juuti, M, Saxena, N, Asokan, N
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Huhta, O
Shrestha, P
Udar, S
Juuti, M
Saxena, N
Asokan, N
description Deauthentication is an important component of any authentication system. The widespread use of computing devices in daily life has underscored the need for zero-effort deauthentication schemes. However, the quest for eliminating user effort may lead to hidden security flaws in the authentication schemes. As a case in point, we investigate a prominent zero-effort deauthentication scheme, called ZEBRA, which provides an interesting and a useful solution to a difficult problem as demonstrated in the original paper. We identify a subtle incorrect assumption in its adversary model that leads to a fundamental design flaw. We exploit this to break the scheme with a class of attacks that are much easier for a human to perform in a realistic adversary model, compared to the na\"ive attacks studied in the ZEBRA paper. For example, one of our main attacks, where the human attacker has to opportunistically mimic only the victim's keyboard typing activity at a nearby terminal, is significantly more successful compared to the na\"ive attack that requires mimicking keyboard and mouse activities as well as keyboard-mouse movements. Further, by understanding the design flaws in ZEBRA as cases of tainted input, we show that we can draw on well-understood design principles to improve ZEBRA's security.
doi_str_mv 10.48550/arxiv.1505.05779
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>arxiv_GOX</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_arxiv_primary_1505_05779</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1505_05779</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a679-c380564870ad43b40400c5bd1a33db4625d761cec41fe20633c211a3a716bf313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotj71OwzAYRb0woMIDMOEXSLDjv5StKoUiVQpDJxiiz45dLFonsp0K3p6QMl3p3KsrHYTuKCl5LQR5gPjtzyUVRJREKLW8Rh9vPjs4HhP2AT_Z5A_BhwN-t7EvNs71MU8UxvxpQ_YGsu_DI26GYSrG4NPE8HY8QcCNTjae5wFe5QzmK92gq-k62dv_XKD982a_3ha75uV1vdoVINWyMKwmQvJaEeg405xwQozQHQXGOs1lJTolqbGGU2crIhkzFZ1KUFRqxyhboPvL7WzXDtGfIP60f5btbMl-AWEZTao</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pitfalls in Designing Zero-Effort Deauthentication: Opportunistic Human Observation Attacks</title><source>arXiv.org</source><creator>Huhta, O ; Shrestha, P ; Udar, S ; Juuti, M ; Saxena, N ; Asokan, N</creator><creatorcontrib>Huhta, O ; Shrestha, P ; Udar, S ; Juuti, M ; Saxena, N ; Asokan, N</creatorcontrib><description>Deauthentication is an important component of any authentication system. The widespread use of computing devices in daily life has underscored the need for zero-effort deauthentication schemes. However, the quest for eliminating user effort may lead to hidden security flaws in the authentication schemes. As a case in point, we investigate a prominent zero-effort deauthentication scheme, called ZEBRA, which provides an interesting and a useful solution to a difficult problem as demonstrated in the original paper. We identify a subtle incorrect assumption in its adversary model that leads to a fundamental design flaw. We exploit this to break the scheme with a class of attacks that are much easier for a human to perform in a realistic adversary model, compared to the na\"ive attacks studied in the ZEBRA paper. For example, one of our main attacks, where the human attacker has to opportunistically mimic only the victim's keyboard typing activity at a nearby terminal, is significantly more successful compared to the na\"ive attack that requires mimicking keyboard and mouse activities as well as keyboard-mouse movements. Further, by understanding the design flaws in ZEBRA as cases of tainted input, we show that we can draw on well-understood design principles to improve ZEBRA's security.</description><identifier>DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1505.05779</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Computer Science - Cryptography and Security</subject><creationdate>2015-05</creationdate><rights>http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>228,230,776,881</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1505.05779$$EView_record_in_Cornell_University$$FView_record_in_$$GCornell_University$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1505.05779$$DView paper in arXiv$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huhta, O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shrestha, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Udar, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Juuti, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saxena, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Asokan, N</creatorcontrib><title>Pitfalls in Designing Zero-Effort Deauthentication: Opportunistic Human Observation Attacks</title><description>Deauthentication is an important component of any authentication system. The widespread use of computing devices in daily life has underscored the need for zero-effort deauthentication schemes. However, the quest for eliminating user effort may lead to hidden security flaws in the authentication schemes. As a case in point, we investigate a prominent zero-effort deauthentication scheme, called ZEBRA, which provides an interesting and a useful solution to a difficult problem as demonstrated in the original paper. We identify a subtle incorrect assumption in its adversary model that leads to a fundamental design flaw. We exploit this to break the scheme with a class of attacks that are much easier for a human to perform in a realistic adversary model, compared to the na\"ive attacks studied in the ZEBRA paper. For example, one of our main attacks, where the human attacker has to opportunistically mimic only the victim's keyboard typing activity at a nearby terminal, is significantly more successful compared to the na\"ive attack that requires mimicking keyboard and mouse activities as well as keyboard-mouse movements. Further, by understanding the design flaws in ZEBRA as cases of tainted input, we show that we can draw on well-understood design principles to improve ZEBRA's security.</description><subject>Computer Science - Cryptography and Security</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>GOX</sourceid><recordid>eNotj71OwzAYRb0woMIDMOEXSLDjv5StKoUiVQpDJxiiz45dLFonsp0K3p6QMl3p3KsrHYTuKCl5LQR5gPjtzyUVRJREKLW8Rh9vPjs4HhP2AT_Z5A_BhwN-t7EvNs71MU8UxvxpQ_YGsu_DI26GYSrG4NPE8HY8QcCNTjae5wFe5QzmK92gq-k62dv_XKD982a_3ha75uV1vdoVINWyMKwmQvJaEeg405xwQozQHQXGOs1lJTolqbGGU2crIhkzFZ1KUFRqxyhboPvL7WzXDtGfIP60f5btbMl-AWEZTao</recordid><startdate>20150521</startdate><enddate>20150521</enddate><creator>Huhta, O</creator><creator>Shrestha, P</creator><creator>Udar, S</creator><creator>Juuti, M</creator><creator>Saxena, N</creator><creator>Asokan, N</creator><scope>AKY</scope><scope>GOX</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150521</creationdate><title>Pitfalls in Designing Zero-Effort Deauthentication: Opportunistic Human Observation Attacks</title><author>Huhta, O ; Shrestha, P ; Udar, S ; Juuti, M ; Saxena, N ; Asokan, N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a679-c380564870ad43b40400c5bd1a33db4625d761cec41fe20633c211a3a716bf313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Computer Science - Cryptography and Security</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huhta, O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shrestha, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Udar, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Juuti, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saxena, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Asokan, N</creatorcontrib><collection>arXiv Computer Science</collection><collection>arXiv.org</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huhta, O</au><au>Shrestha, P</au><au>Udar, S</au><au>Juuti, M</au><au>Saxena, N</au><au>Asokan, N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pitfalls in Designing Zero-Effort Deauthentication: Opportunistic Human Observation Attacks</atitle><date>2015-05-21</date><risdate>2015</risdate><abstract>Deauthentication is an important component of any authentication system. The widespread use of computing devices in daily life has underscored the need for zero-effort deauthentication schemes. However, the quest for eliminating user effort may lead to hidden security flaws in the authentication schemes. As a case in point, we investigate a prominent zero-effort deauthentication scheme, called ZEBRA, which provides an interesting and a useful solution to a difficult problem as demonstrated in the original paper. We identify a subtle incorrect assumption in its adversary model that leads to a fundamental design flaw. We exploit this to break the scheme with a class of attacks that are much easier for a human to perform in a realistic adversary model, compared to the na\"ive attacks studied in the ZEBRA paper. For example, one of our main attacks, where the human attacker has to opportunistically mimic only the victim's keyboard typing activity at a nearby terminal, is significantly more successful compared to the na\"ive attack that requires mimicking keyboard and mouse activities as well as keyboard-mouse movements. Further, by understanding the design flaws in ZEBRA as cases of tainted input, we show that we can draw on well-understood design principles to improve ZEBRA's security.</abstract><doi>10.48550/arxiv.1505.05779</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1505.05779
ispartof
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_arxiv_primary_1505_05779
source arXiv.org
subjects Computer Science - Cryptography and Security
title Pitfalls in Designing Zero-Effort Deauthentication: Opportunistic Human Observation Attacks
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T18%3A45%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-arxiv_GOX&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pitfalls%20in%20Designing%20Zero-Effort%20Deauthentication:%20Opportunistic%20Human%20Observation%20Attacks&rft.au=Huhta,%20O&rft.date=2015-05-21&rft_id=info:doi/10.48550/arxiv.1505.05779&rft_dat=%3Carxiv_GOX%3E1505_05779%3C/arxiv_GOX%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true