Mobile password security by the numbers

Mobile password entry is unnecessarily painful. Here's how auto-correction coupled with "pass sentences" could help.

By Markus Jakobsson with Ruj Akavipat, ITworld.com |  Mobile & Wireless, passwords

Passwords are everywhere. We are not allowed to reuse passwords. We must not forget them. We must constantly change them -- and avoid reusing components in order to bolster security -- which of course increases the risks that we will forget them. And time after time, we must enter them.

My least favorite place to enter passwords is on my cell phone. It is much more painful than just entering text. If I write "Hwllo Wiliam" in an email or SMS, my phone will kindly correct this and make it "Hello William". Nice to have some help when the keyboard is the size of a large watch.

But that does not work for passwords.

Why is that? Simply put, because secure passwords should look more like poorly typed or spelled words than their corrected counterparts. In fact, "Hwllo" might be a pretty decent password. But "Hello" sure is not. Just as "ftog" may be ok, but "frog" is not a good password.

Does that mean we should just resign, concluding that passwords will remain painful, and grow increasingly more so as we get used to more and more error correction features for other text entry?

I say no, that is not so.

Let me describe a solution that overcomes the problem -- while improving the security of the system.

Imagine first that we do rely on error correction for password entry. If you enter "ftog", that means "frog" to your computer. Good for you, that makes it easy to enter. And next time you may enter it as "drog" -- or even as "frog", if you are lucky. This password is easy to remember, as it has some meaning.

But hold on, it is not secure, because it is a dictionary word, and as such, it is easily guessed.

Well, no problem. Require another word -– the word "work", for example. The password is now "frog work". (You may enter this real carelessly -– "ftog qiej" will do just fine, and it gets corrected to "frog work". This is obviously more secure, as an attacker who knows that we use two words now must try all two-word combinations until finding the right one. But still it is not eminently secure.

What do we do? I am sure you can guess. Add another word.

A particular user may choose the sequence "frog work flat", which might correspond to the mnemonic "I ran over a frog on my way to work. It became flat." (Psychologists know that colorful mnemonics are easier to remember than less-colorful ones.)

So we have "frog work flat". How secure is that? The frequencies of these words in the English language are 10-5.13, 10-3.20 and 10-4.36. The combination therefore occurs with probability 10-12.7 -- the product of those three frequency values -- or approximately 2-42. That is a strong credential.

Join us:
Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

LinkedIn

Google+

Join us:
Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

LinkedIn

Google+

Ask a Question
randomness