skip to main content
10.1145/3319535.3363250acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Force vs. Nudge: Comparing Users' Pattern Choices on SysPal and TinPal

Published:06 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Android's 3X3 graphical pattern lock scheme is one of the widely used authentication method on smartphone devices. However, users choose 3X3 patterns from a small subspace of all possible 389,112 patterns. The two recently proposed interfaces, SysPal by Cho et al. and TinPal by the authors, demonstrate that it is possible to influence users 3X3 pattern choices by making small modifications in the existing interface. While SysPal forces users to include one, two or three system-assigned random dots in their pattern, TinPal employs highlighting mechanism to inform users about the set of reachable dots from the current selected dot. Both interfaces improved the security of 3X3 patterns without affecting usability, but no comparison between SysPal and TinPal was presented. To address this gap, we conduct a new user study with 147 participants and collect patterns on three SysPal interfaces, 1-dot, 2-dot and 3-dot. We compare SysPal and TinPal patterns using a range of security and usability metrics including pattern length, stroke length, guessability, recall time and login attempts. Overall, we found that patterns created on TinPal were significantly longer and offered more resistance to guessing attacks.

References

  1. Aviv et al. 2015. Is Bigger Better? Comparing User-Generated Passwords on 3x3 vs. 4x4 Grid Sizes for Android's Pattern Unlock (ACSAC'15). ACM, 301--310.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. G. Cho et al. 2017. SysPal: System-Guided Pattern Locks for Android (S&P'17). IEEE, 338--356.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Panagiotis et al. 2014. Complexity Metrics and User Strength Perceptions of the Pattern-Lock Graphical Authentication Method (HAS'14). Springer, 115--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sun et al. 2014. Dissecting Pattern Unlock. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. (2014), 308--320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Tupsamudre et al. 2017. Pass-O: A Proposal to Improve the Security of Pattern Unlock Scheme (ASIA CCS'17). ACM, 400--407.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Tupsamudre et al. 2018. TinPal: An Enhanced Interface for Pattern Locks (USEC'18). Internet Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Uellenbeck et al. 2013. Quantifying the Security of Graphical Passwords: The Case of Android Unlock Patterns (CCS'13). ACM, 161--172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Zezschwitz et al. 2015. Easy to Draw, but Hard to Trace?: On the Observability of Grid-based (Un)Lock Patterns (CHI'15). ACM, 2339--2342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Force vs. Nudge: Comparing Users' Pattern Choices on SysPal and TinPal

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CCS '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
          November 2019
          2755 pages
          ISBN:9781450367479
          DOI:10.1145/3319535

          Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 6 November 2019

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • poster

          Acceptance Rates

          CCS '19 Paper Acceptance Rate149of934submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate1,261of6,999submissions,18%

          Upcoming Conference

          CCS '24
          ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
          October 14 - 18, 2024
          Salt Lake City , UT , USA
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader