Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
The Problem With Two-Factor Authentication
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
anon2405478111
anon2405478111,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/4/2014 | 6:01:03 PM
Duo Security
I think Duo Security's two-factor authentication may do things differently. However, I have yet to see an true expert write a review on this service, so I would definitely be interested in reading what the author has to say about it. https://www.duosecurity.com
Li Tan
Li Tan,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/4/2014 | 8:01:00 PM
Re: Duo Security
The new approach looks good. Furthermore, the core concept behind is important - the security lies mainly with architecture from design perpsective instead of single piece of authentication technology. I am willing to see more articles describing it in more detail.
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
2/5/2014 | 1:51:45 PM
Security is more than authentication
I totally agree, Li, that the Garret raised an issue that too often overlooked in the  discussions of biometrics, tokens and passwords and other mutlficactor authentication technologies.  You can have the best authentication in the world, but if the architecture isn't designed properly you're still vulnerable. 
Ariella
Ariella,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/5/2014 | 5:33:57 PM
Re: Security is more than authentication
And wouldn't you know it? Maxine has just the right picture for this topic: 
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
2/6/2014 | 7:55:37 AM
Re: Security is more than authentication
Funny -- and not just Maxine. I can see the cartoon on my phone but not on my laptop. Anyone else having that problem?
Li Tan
Li Tan,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/5/2014 | 9:52:23 PM
Re: Security is more than authentication
You got my point, Marilyn. Furthermore, I am a little bit pessimistic regarding security. You can improve security all the time by implementing new architectures and techniques but you will never caulk the gap - there is always cavity for the hackers.:-(
aaronAshfield
aaronAshfield,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/12/2014 | 12:33:01 AM
Two-Factor Authentication is OBSOLETE
Two-factor authentication is an old concept that applies well to workstations, however, fails to protect data on mobile devices... A simple device left un-attended while open will compromise enterprise data. Presence-based real-time security offered by Secure Access Technologies provides breakthrough security and breakthrough user experience. www.SecureAccessTechnologies.com
GGRAJEK
GGRAJEK,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 3:11:32 PM
Re: Duo Security
>  the security lies mainly with architecture from design perpsective instead of single piece of authentication technolog

Exactly.   I will be writing more about this.  If you want any more immediate readings, please go to:

http://blog.secureauth.com/cto

 
GGRAJEK
GGRAJEK,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 3:07:20 PM
Re: Duo Security
Duo has very nice PUSH authentication - but as I stated - relying on a single form factor for authentication is setting the enterprise up for failure.    THe key is too abstract the authenticaiton and then be able to select the form factor most appropriate, PUSH Notification being one of the choices.   (THe others being  SMS, Telephony, X.509, OATH MObile tokens, Hard Tokens,  Gov't Issue  Credentials, Smart Cards, Social IDs, etc.)

And most importantly - construct a solution - that allows rapid (and secure) delivery/deployment of these authentication methodologies.   E.G. - as stated - this is where the hacks are occruing. 

 
smptpus3r
smptpus3r,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/4/2014 | 6:44:17 PM
Great write up
Its a great approach... look forward for new articles on the subject from the Author.
GGRAJEK
GGRAJEK,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 3:09:32 PM
Re: Great write up
Will do.   The Neiman Marcus, Living Social, Snapchat hacks have made us authentication guys "hip" again - and I thank InformationWeek for giving me the forum to write about what I love!
K.Sree
K.Sree,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/5/2014 | 2:01:48 AM
Effective Two-factor authentication
A best analysis on the two-factor authentication. However, a bidirectional approach (both from Server and Client communications) will give better solutions. VeriQR is such a solution addressing this - http://www.integritauk.com/veriQR.html
SaneIT
SaneIT,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/5/2014 | 8:45:37 AM
Beyond authentication
I live by the old saying that locks are for honest people.   If someone wants in badly enough a lock is not going to stop them.  The same goes for any authentication method.  If you lock down your application well enough someone will turn to social engineering to get in.  One thing I rarely see covered when talking about securing any assets is intelligent monitoring.  The recent attacks on Target and Niemen Marcus don't seem to have been detected until after millions of records were lost.  One thing I'd like to see addressed is how do you see the leak before the flood gates are fully open?
Ariella
Ariella,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/5/2014 | 9:41:14 AM
Re: Beyond authentication
@SaneIt In light of your comment, I wonder if we should regard locks and this kind of authentication as a positional good. Its value is derived from others not having it. It's rather like those steering wheel locks sold as anti-theft protection on cars. They won't prevent a truly capable thief form taking your car. But if your car is not particularly valuable and is among others of equal value that do not have the extra protection, the thief may just go for the easiest break-in. However, when every driver starts using these things, then they'll make no difference. 
SaneIT
SaneIT,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/6/2014 | 8:28:05 AM
Re: Beyond authentication
Yes I believe that we should view it as a good practice but we should not rely on authentication as the sole source of protection.  A majority of data loss/misuse comes from internal sources so part of the battle has to be monitoring and swift action when irregularities are detected.
smholloway
smholloway,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/5/2014 | 7:37:16 PM
Two factor is useful after the data breach
Overall, a good article. However, I take issue with two things: first, user fatigue. There are new 2FA offerings that are largely invisible (see, for example, Toopher). When users don't have to keep track of a separate single-use item and they don't have to manually approve every request, they will flock to two-factor. And that brings me to my second nitpick: two-factor is useful after the data breach--perhaps even more important after your usernames and passwords are public information. If your account details are leaked, multi-factor authentication helps reduce the damage that can be done with your hacked credentials. Ultimately, we need more high quality two factor implementations, and, as you said, securing logins will be easier when we start funnelling all logins through a single point, reducing the attack surface.
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
2/6/2014 | 8:01:06 AM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach > User fatigue
When users don't have to keep track of a separate single-use item and they don't have to manually approve every request, they will flock to two-factor.

I hope you are right about this @smholloway. And agreed, that if TFA or MFA can substantially reduce damage from hacked PII after the breach that will be a big deal. (Not nitpick at all.)
Beck
Beck,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 10:33:11 AM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
What exactly do you mean by invisible? Does Toopher remember your credentials or cookies and automatically log you in on your mobile device? I could see a lot of holes in that security. Excellent point about the post-breach security though. I definitely agree that 2fa is an important step.
M_Gordon
M_Gordon,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 10:41:17 AM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
@BGordon1

I use Toopher with LastPass and absolutly love it! What they mean by invisible is their automation feature. Toopher uses location awareness of your smartphone to automate authentication so that you don't have to take any extra steps - like having to type in any passcodes to complete the authentication process. It is the most user friendly 2fa I have experienced. Check out this video... it helped me better understand what Toopher does. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k78xDTpy7PU
Beck
Beck,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 12:10:23 PM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
Woah, thanks for the quick response! I didn't realize how many users Toopher has. I've never used LastPass but I'll go ahead and check that out too, thanks for the info.
moarsauce123
moarsauce123,
User Rank: Ninja
2/7/2014 | 2:49:27 PM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
We tried Toopher here and it was a horrible waste of time...  Ended up looking elsewhere at the time, didn't know about Garret's concept which looks great.
CalistaHerdhart
CalistaHerdhart,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 2:52:24 PM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
Yea, we tried SecureAuth and it was great, transparent 2factor that worked with all of our cloud and internal apps, sso and password reset included.  Covered everything at a price point we could live with.  bye bye rsa securid tokens
smholloway
smholloway,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 10:55:29 AM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
@BGordon1 I think the concept of invisible authentication is a bit tricky because no one else is doing it. Toopher can automate authentication requests based on your location so that future requests from the same location are invisibly approved. For example, if you're logging into your bank's website from your home computer, the bank would ask Toopher to authenticate, Toopher would ping your phone, and your phone will respond for you (assuming you've chosen to automate the same request in the past); your bank logs you in without you having to type in a one time password or any of that nonsense. It's still a second factor--it's just invisible. The Toopher site might explain it better than I can: https://www.toopher.com/.
anon2284099262
anon2284099262,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 1:18:09 PM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
RE Toopher, What would happen if someone stole your phone and knew where you did business. I would think that is sort of a single point of failure. 
tstewart2k
tstewart2k,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 3:11:13 PM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
If someone stole your phone AND knew where you did business, they would also need your username and password, so that is more like 3 or 4 ppints of failure.  That is beside the point becuase you (person responsible for providing access to and protecting application(s) can add factors (1, 2, 3+...) and strength of those factors depending on the value of the data and the usability requirements.  By having the strong auth and SSO abstracted away form the guts of the app, there is flexibility to respond to threats and tweak auth methods in real without touching all the apps every time.  That is the beauty of what Garret is talking about.  It is a fundamentally better way in every way.  
capsaicin
capsaicin,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 5:35:40 PM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
I think that is exactly one of the points the author makes. Any authentication mechanism can be breached, thus it is imperative that their are options and flexibility available to easily move to another methodology. We should all accept and expect that over time there will be a breach of a given method, be it the Toopher method, or the Telephony / SMS / Push methods that have gained a lot of traction. When that happens, it needs to be simple to switch to a new methodology very quickly (click of a mouse?) without having to completely recode / rip and replace technology.
Auth_Pro
Auth_Pro,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 3:07:47 PM
Preformed head to head with toopher,secureauth, okta, duo & securid
After a month long review of Toopher, Duo Security, Okta, SecureAuth and SecurID I can say that gartner was right about secureauth having the best customer service in the authentication space.  Toopher support was non existent, okta sales were pushy as heck, securid was a workable dinosaur which left duo and secureauth.  What secureauth put together was something that deployed quickly and worked for our use cases, duo deployed quickly too but only covered half of our use cases.
IMjustinkern
IMjustinkern,
User Rank: Strategist
2/7/2014 | 3:59:05 PM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
I know our folks and customers are big fans of Toopher. Lots of people using LastPass or KeePass (more on the former). I think two-factor authentication has a great place as part of a "defense in depth" approach, which starts with the data. That's what the hackers are going for, after all. 
RobertW152
RobertW152,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/7/2014 | 4:39:09 PM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
I agree with you completely, and think that the #1 hurdle for 2FA, is acceptance by the end user. I think most organizations gamble that productivity is more important than security until a hack occurrs. If you give your end users a technology that balances Productivity & Security, then organizations will adopt 2FA for themselves and for other user groups like contactors, customers, Before it's too late. Disclosure: I work for SecureAuth, the author of this post's company.
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
2/10/2014 | 8:51:13 AM
Re: Two factor is useful after the data breach
I second your point about user acceptance of 2FA. Speaking as typical end-user, I for one, would welcome any relief from the tyranny (and ineffectiveness) of passwords.

(PS Thanks for the disclosure of your relationship with the author's company!)
WKash
WKash,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/10/2014 | 3:37:37 PM
NIST NSTICk
Garret, what's your take on the work being done at NIST and the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace  in coming up w/ better a better solution?
humlik
humlik,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/13/2014 | 8:42:28 AM
The problem is the authentication technology itself, not the outside architecture
First - thanks for the article, it's always good to open painful topics. I absolutely agree with Andrew's comment. Garret Grajek excellently identified and formulated several Achilles heels of authentication, bud I disagree with the formulation that "The problem is not in authentication"- I would formulate the main idea in the opposite way: "The problem is the authentication technology itself, not the outside architecture!"

Garret in his article correctly observed one architectural misconception. He uncovered that the authentication technology is not just composed of "identity verification act".

Many of you (does not matter if you are customer or developer) may already have noticed that the rest of Devils's hoof is being silently moved onto your shoulders.

And that's wrong. The authentication technology must offer a compact and unbreakable solution for entire life-cycle of your "cybernetic" identity – identity creation, validation/verification, deletion, lost, expiration and much more including ID provisioning!

That's why the US is coming with the NSTIC (National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace - http://www.nist.gov/nstic/), why the European Union is coming with the SSEDIC activity (European eID - http://www.eid-ssedic.eu/).

Maybe one interesting information is coming for EU region – the SSEDIC has been completing work on formulating visions of future eID. This work is coming from 3-year SSEDIC analysis of existing authentication technologies and issues. Main principles of that future vision are incorporated into new strategy called DII – Distributed Identity Infrastructure. The final text of recommendation will be released soon.

Welcome to the new Matrix ;)


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Incorporating a Prevention Mindset into Threat Detection and Response
Threat detection and response systems, by definition, are reactive because they have to wait for damage to be done before finding the attack. With a prevention-mindset, security teams can proactively anticipate the attacker's next move, rather than reacting to specific threats or trying to detect the latest techniques in real-time. The report covers areas enterprises should focus on: What positive response looks like. Improving security hygiene. Combining preventive actions with red team efforts.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-1678
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-25
An issue was discovered in the Linux Kernel from 4.18 to 4.19, an improper update of sock reference in TCP pacing can lead to memory/netns leak, which can be used by remote clients.
CVE-2021-32966
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-25
Philips Interoperability Solution XDS versions 2.5 through 3.11 and 2018-1 through 2021-1 are vulnerable to clear text transmission of sensitive information when configured to use LDAP via TLS and where the domain controller returns LDAP referrals, which may allow an attacker to remotely read LDAP s...
CVE-2021-32989
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-25
When a non-existent resource is requested, the LCDS LAquis SCADA application (version 4.3.1.1011 and prior) returns error messages which may allow reflected cross-site scripting.
CVE-2021-32997
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-25
The affected Baker Hughes Bentley Nevada products (3500 System 1 6.x, Part No. 3060/00 versions 6.98 and prior, 3500 System 1, Part No. 3071/xx & 3072/xx versions 21.1 HF1 and prior, 3500 Rack Configuration, Part No. 129133-01 versions 6.4 and prior, and 3500/22M Firmware, Part No. 288055-01 ver...
CVE-2021-35487
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-25
Nokia Broadcast Message Center through 11.1.0 allows an authenticated user to perform a Boolean Blind SQL Injection attack on the endpoint /owui/block/send-receive-updates (for the Manage Alerts page) via the extIdentifier HTTP POST parameter. This allows an attacker to obtain the database user, dat...