4.6 Article

Two Birds with One Stone: Two-Factor Authentication with Security Beyond Conventional Bound

期刊

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TDSC.2016.2605087

关键词

Two-factor authentication; smart card loss attack; Zipf's law; provable security; random oracle model

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61472016]
  2. National Key Research and Development Plan of China [2016YFB0800600]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As the most prevailing two-factor authentication mechanism, smart-card-based password authentication has been a subject of intensive research in the past two decades, and hundreds of this type of schemes have wave upon wave been proposed. In most of these studies, there is no comprehensive and systematical metric available for schemes to be assessed objectively, and the authors present new schemes with assertions of the superior aspects over previous ones, while overlooking dimensions on which their schemes fare poorly. Unsurprisingly, most of them are far from satisfactor-either are found short of important security goals or lack of critical properties, especially being stuck with the security-usability tension. To overcome this issue, in this work we first explicitly define a security model that can accurately capture the practical capabilities of an adversary and then suggest a broad set of twelve properties framed as a systematic methodology for comparative evaluation, allowing schemes to be rated across a common spectrum. As our main contribution, a new scheme is advanced to resolve the various issues arising from user corruption and server compromise, and it is formally proved secure under the harshest adversary model so far. In particular, by integrating honeywords, traditionally the purview of system security, with a fuzzy-verifier, our scheme hits two birds: it not only eliminates the long-standing security-usability conflict that is considered intractable in the literature, but also achieves security guarantees beyond the conventional optimal security bound.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据