Reps for Microsoft’s new Outlook.com service suggest that strong passwords and vague statements about R&D are enough to protect their users.
Mashable questioned Microsoft about Outlook.com’s security and was told that, unlike Google, two-factor authentication will not be implemented. Google does not require use of two-factor authentication, but they do offer it to users on an opt-in basis. Microsoft’s decree that they won’t even offer an opt-in service is disappointing to say the least, and will very likely come back to haunt them in the following months/years.
The tone of the MS rep’s comments gives the impression that two-factor-auth is a sort of anachronism or secret handshake — something only a Spock-eared nerd or snobby IT elite would encumber himself with. Whether they take issue with the two-factor concept generally, or Google’s implementation specifically, is unclear.
The rep’s case boils down to two propositions:
- (Google’s?) Two-factor auth creates a bad user experience.
- Strong passwords and unspecified future schemes are secure enough.
Let’s examine these in more detail.
Google’s two-factor scheme works like this:
- Joe Blow has a Google account which stores email, browser passwords, documents, and other private stuff
- Joe tells Google that his password will be “JoeIsCool”, that his cell phone number is 867-555-5309, and that he wants to use two-factor authentication
- If Joe accesses his Google account from his home computer or other trusted machine, he may be asked to enter his password, “JoeIsCool”, once a day or every other day; Joe enters the password and Google lets him in
- If Joe wants to use his Google account from an internet cafe or untrusted computer, Google will ask him to enter his password, but it will also send a code to his cell phone; he must enter both tokens (password and one-time code) before Google will let him in
- If Hacker Henry discovers Joe’s password, he isn’t able break in to Joe’s account since he doesn’t have Joe’s phone and thus can’t receive the one-time code; what’s more, Joe is now alerted that someone is trying to break in
To me, the biggest usability barrier in this scheme is getting the initial user buy-in. The user needs to know that the option exists, that it is important, that it is good, and that it is easy. If the user opts-in, use of the two-factor scheme is fairly straightforward; Joe attempts to log in from an untrusted computer, he enters his password correctly, he receives a text with a number in it, he enters the number, he’s in.
Think about it this way: he only needs to remember his password. Whether he uses two-factor or not, he only needs to remember his password. If he uses two-factor, the system itself gives him a token and asks for it back — no additional memory burden. Compare this to the most common method of enhanced authentication: testing your memory. When I log on to my bank’s website from an untrusted computer, the site asks for the usual stuff and then tests my memory about certain things. What is your favourite movie? Who was your first grade teacher’s name? What is your pet’s name? These seem like simple questions to answer, but there be dragons here. You may remember the facts just fine, but must also reproduce the answer you gave when you created the account. This gets into issues of case-sensitive tokens, ambiguous questions that can have several perfectly sensible but incorrect answers, etc.
How is that not a giant usability minefield? Google prompts you with the exact token it wants, zero memory burden on the user (aside from the password, obviously) each and every time it asks you to authenticate. A memory test, by comparison, is always a memory test; each time you are asked to remember something, you have to perform a search in your memory or in your little black book of things you can’t be bothered to actually remember.
One potential pitfall of Google’s two-factor is that the user must have access to his or her phone during the authentication. In 2012, I don’t see this as an unreasonable requirement, but there’s always that one day when you’ve lost your phone or its battery died right when you need to log in.
So, what authentication scheme will Microsoft employ that is plenty secure and user friendly? They aren’t saying. The rep assures us that they’re pouring money and effort into R&D on this matter, but I can’t see them inventing a totally new scheme that satisfies ease of use and strong security. I’m expecting a reliance on strong passwords (on pain of death, little user!), the usual memory tests, and perhaps something gimmicky tacked on… Something graphical?
Keep watching the skies…