SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Nicolas Huaman

Publications and source records attributed to Nicolas Huaman.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

"We've Disabled MFA for You": An Evaluation of the Security and Usability of Multi-Factor Authentication Recovery Deployments

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and the official help and support pages, implying that information meant to aid users is often either incorrect or outdated.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.

cs.CR

Pushed by Accident: A Mixed-Methods Study on Strategies of Handling Secret Information in Source Code Repositories

Version control systems for source code, such as Git, are key tools in modern software development. Many developers use services like GitHub or GitLab for collaborative software development. Many software projects include code secrets such as API keys or passwords that need to be managed securely. Previous research and blog posts found that developers struggle with secure code secret management and accidentally leaked code secrets to public Git repositories. Leaking code secrets to the public can have disastrous consequences, such as abusing services and systems or making sensitive user data available to attackers. In a mixed-methods study, we surveyed 109 developers with version control system experience. Additionally, we conducted 14 in-depth semi-structured interviews with developers who experienced secret leakage in the past. 30.3% of our participants encountered code secret leaks in the past. Most of them face several challenges with secret leakage prevention and remediation. Based on our findings, we discuss challenges, such as estimating the risks of leaked secrets, and the needs of developers in remediating and preventing code secret leaks, such as low adoption requirements. We conclude with recommendations for developers and source code platform providers to reduce the risk of secret leakage.

cs.CR

A Large Scale Investigation of Obfuscation Use in Google Play

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.

cs.CR