{"id":1133,"date":"2016-01-11T20:09:04","date_gmt":"2016-01-11T17:09:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.protectimus.com\/blog\/?p=1133"},"modified":"2019-07-30T15:08:44","modified_gmt":"2019-07-30T12:08:44","slug":"google-auth-without-passwords","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.protectimus.com\/blog\/google-auth-without-passwords\/","title":{"rendered":"Will Google’s Authentication without Passwords Be Safe?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I guess that’s not only me, who’s tired of passwords: we should remember them, they should be strong enough not to be guessed or brute forced<\/a>, and even more, they should be different for each website. But it has recently turned out, that not only I think so.<\/p>\n

A few days ago I have come across the information that Google is testing a new system of authentication without passwords that will allow refusing the password entry when logging into the account. User authentication will be reduced to simply clicking \u2018Yes\u2019 button on a smartphone, thus confirming the identity and getting access to the account.<\/p>\n

Being a specialist in information security, I decided to share my opinion about this authentication solution. There are some doubts about its feasibility and security. Besides, I would like to find out what do you think about it.<\/p>\n

The data exchange is performed via GCM (Google Cloud Messaging). When the notification is sent to the user’s device, he or she should accept it to log into the account.<\/p>\n

According to the Rohit Paul, who have informed the world about this innovation, the system works according to the two-factor authentication principle. At first, the user needs to log into the smartphone (the first factor), and only then he will be able to accept the Goggle’s notification and enter the account (the second factor).<\/p>\n

\"authentication<\/p>\n

But I dare to disagree as this scheme has a few \u2018buts\u2019:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. It would be a serious mistake to consider this method to be a real two-factor authentication. When clicking the button \u2018Yes\u2019, the user actually confirms only one factor – the factor of owning the phone. The second factor (knowledge) is not checked by the system. 2-factor authentication involves the use of two different factors at the same time – a knowledge factor + ownership factor or biometrics. The key idea of 2FA is that the advantages of one factor can overlap the downsides of another one.<\/li>\n
  2. If your smartphone is locked, lost, or you simply cannot reach it, you can enter the account with the usual login and password. This means that the second factor is optional. What will prevent an attacker from taking advantage of this loophole? It is not a big problem for a hacker to get the password using phishing<\/a>, social engineering<\/a>, brute force<\/a>, etc.<\/li>\n
  3. In fact, such an innovation can even make the situation with the account protection worse. The attacker now will even have a choice \u2013 either to guess or steal the password or to infect the user’s smartphone with a virus. It is worth mentioning that 87% of Android smartphones are vulnerable. The bulletins about the iOS vulnerabilities also creep in from time to time.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The new authentication without passwords system with signal transmission via GCM, which is being tested by Google, is obviously not designed to strengthen the data protection. Perhaps, such a scheme is suitable to simplify the login process as the user needs only to press a single button. In this case, I agree, it is convenient and pleasant for most users because all people are lazy by their nature.<\/p>\n

    But if taking the data protection seriously, in my opinion, it is better to stay off the authentication without passwords method and use 2FA with one-time passwords instead. Today, there are many free applications for one-time passwords generation – Google Authenticator, Protectimus Smart<\/a>, etc.<\/p>\n<\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I guess that’s not only me, who’s tired of passwords: we should remember them, they should be strong enough not to be guessed or brute forced, and even more, they should be different for each website. But it has recently turned out, that not only I think so. A few days ago I have come […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":4563,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,15],"tags":[16,202,118,120,139,99],"class_list":["post-1133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-industry-news","category-rd","tag-2fa","tag-cybersecurity","tag-data-protection","tag-multifactor-authentication","tag-tokens","tag-two-factor-authentication"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t