Skip to main content

Secret Questions are not a Secret

Technology Review took a look at an advance copy of a study that validates what Ms. Palin already knew. Secret questions don’t help much: 
In research to be presented at the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy this week […] the researchers found that 28 percent of the people who knew and were trusted by the study's participants could guess the correct answers to the participant's secret questions. Even people not trusted by the participant still had a 17 percent chance of guessing the correct answer to a secret question. 
This is a fundamental and well known problem. Putting real numbers on it should help those who are in  the design meeting where secret questions get brought up.

To re-hash the secret question problem, either I answer the questions correctly and risk a 1 in 5 chance that a stranger will guess them, or I fabricate unique, nonsensical answers. If the fabricated answers are such that they can’t be reasonably guessed, then there isn’t much chance that I’ll remember what I answered, so I’m stuck writing them down somewhere and tracking them for a decade or so.

Obviously there are solutions that I can implement myself, like using a password safe of some type to store the made up questions and answers. But what about the vast majority of ordinary users? How many of them are going to set up a password safe, figure out how to keep it up to date, replicate it to a safe location and not lock themselves out? Not many. They’ll have no choice but to write everything down.

I can image trying to explain to non-technical users that they need to have made-up answers to made-up questions, and that the made up questions and answers must be unique for each on line account, and the questions and answers need to be atypical enough that someone close to them can’t guess the answers even if they know the questions, and that instead of writing the questions and answers down, they need to store the made up questions and answers in a magic piece of software called a ‘password safe’, and they need to put a really strong password that they’ll remember and nobody else will guess on the password safe, and that they can’t write that down either, and they need to replicate the password safe data file to some other media, and if they forget the password to the password safe or lose the password safe data file, they’ll lose access to just about everything.

“Hey ma – here’s what I need you to do…download something called password safe…”

“I already have a safe….”

There’s got to be a better way.


Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

“imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance” --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup is necessary, b…

Ad-Hoc Verses Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to …

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:
In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. The…