skip to main content
10.1145/2381966.2381984acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

For human eyes only: security and usability evaluation

Published:15 October 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents 'For Human Eyes Only' (FHEO), our Firefox extension that enables one to conveniently post online messages, such as short emails, comments, and tweets in a form that discourages automatic processing of these messages. Similar to CAPTCHA systems, FHEO distorts the text to various extents. We provide a security analysis of its four default distortion profiles as well as a usability analysis that shows how these profiles affect response time and accurate understanding. Our results illustrate the security/usability tradeoffs that arise in the face of adversaries that use current, off-the-shelf optical character recognition technology in order to launch a variety of attacks. Two profiles, in particular, achieve a level of protection that seems to justify their respective usability degradation in many situations. The 'strongest' distortion profile, however, does not seem to provide a large additional security margin against the adversaries we considered.

References

  1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Pub. L. no 105-304, 112 Stat 2860, Oct. 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. S. E. Ahmad, J. Yan, and M. Tayara. The robustness of google CAPTCHAs. Technical report, School of Computer Science, Newcastle University, UK, May 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. F. Beato, M. Kohlweiss, and K. Wouters. Scramble! your social network data. In S. Fischer-Huebner and N. J. Hopper, editors, Privacy Enhancing Technologies - 2011st International Symposium, PETS 2011, volume 6794 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, page 15, Waterloo,ON,CA, 2011. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. T. Besenyei, Ádám Máté Földes, G. G. Gulyás, and S. Imre. StegoWeb: Towards the ideal private web content publishing tool. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on emerging security information, systems and technologies (SECURWARE 2011), pages 109--114. IARIA, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. C. M. Bishop. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Information Science and Statistics). Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. E. Bursztein, M. Martin, and J. C. Mitchell. Text-based CAPTCHA strengths and weaknesses. In Y. Chen, G. Danezis, and V. Shmatikov, editors, Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2011, Chicago, Illinois, USA, October 17-21, 2011, pages 125--138. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. K. Chellapilla, K. Larson, P. Y. Simard, and M. Czerwinski. Computers beat humans at single character recognition in reading based human interaction proofs (HIPs). In CEAS 2005 - Second Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, July 21-22, 2005, Stanford University, California, USA, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. T. Fawcett. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8):861--874, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. P. Golle. Machine learning attacks against the Asirra CAPTCHA. In L. F. Cranor, editor, Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2009, Mountain View, California, USA, July 15-17, 2009, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S. Guha, K. Tang, and P. Francis. Noyb: privacy in online social networks. In Proceedings of the first workshop on Online social networks, WOSN '08, pages 49--54, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Hollander and D. A. Wolfe. Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 2nd Edition. Wiley, Jan. 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Holtz and W. Wagner. Muslimische Lebenswelten im Kontext: muslimische Internetforen und Fokusgruppen mit jungen Muslimen (Chapter 4). http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/2012/junge_muslime.pdf, last accessed on March 1st, 2012, Bundesministerium des Innern, Alt-Moabit 101 D, 10559 Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. W. J. Jennings. Speed-accuracy tradeoff functions in choice reaction time: Experimental designs and computational procedures. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 19:92--102, 1976.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. Kay and M. A. Terry. Textured agreements: re-envisioning electronic consent. In L. F. Cranor, editor, Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2009, Mountain View, California, USA, July 15-17, 2009, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. J. Larsen and M. L. Marx. An introduction to mathematical statistics and its applications. Pearson, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. V. I. Levenshtein. Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8):707--710, 1966.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. S. Li, S. A. H. Shah, M. A. U. Khan, S. A. Khayam, and A.-R. Sadeghi. Breaking e-Banking CAPTCHAs. In C. Gates, M. Franz, and J. P. McDermott, editors, Twenty-Sixth Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, ACSAC 2010, Austin, Texas, USA, 6-10 December 2010, pages 171--180. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Y. Li and B. Liu. A normalized Levenshtein distance metric. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 29(6):1091--1095, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. M. McDonald and L. F. Cranor. Americans' attitudes about internet behavioral advertising practices. In E. Al-Shaer and K. B. Frikken, editors, Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, WPES 2010, Chicago, Illinois, USA, October 4, 2010, pages 63--72, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Motoyama, K. Levchenko, C. Kanich, D. McCoy, G. M. Voelker, and S. Savage. Re: CAPTCHAs-Understanding CAPTCHA-Solving Services in an Economic Context. In 19th USENIX Security Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, August 11-13, 2010, Proceedings, pages 435--462. USENIX Association, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Pashalidis, N. Mavrogiannopoulos, X. Ferrer, and B. Bermejo Olaizola. For Human Eyes Only: Security and Usability Evaluation. COSIC internal report 2258, KU Leuven, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. D. L. Schnipke and D. J. Scrams. Representing response-time information in item banks. Law School Admission Council, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. J. J. Scott, M. Niranjan, and R. W. Prager. Realisable classifiers: Improving operating performance on variable cost problems. In J. N. Carter and M. S. Nixon, editors, Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 1998, BMVC 1998, Southampton, UK, 1998, pages 304--315. British Machine Vision Association, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. L. J. Skitka and E. G. Sargis. The internet as psychological laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, (57):529--555, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. R. Smith. An overview of the Tesseract OCR engine. In 9th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR 2007), 23-26 September, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil, pages 629--633. IEEE Computer Society, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. Smith, D. Antonova, and D.-S. Lee. Adapting the Tesseract open source OCR engine for multilingual OCR. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multilingual OCR, MOCR '09, pages 1:1--1:8, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. H. Suh. A Study of Bayesian Estimation and Comparison of Response Time Models in Item Response Theory. PhD thesis, University of Kansas, April 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. W. J. van der Linden. A lognormal model for response times on test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(2):181--204, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. W. J. van der Linden and R. K. Hambleton. Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. J. Yan and A. S. E. Ahmad. A low-cost attack on a Microsoft CAPTCHA. In P. Ning, P. F. Syverson, and S. Jha, editors, Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2008, Alexandria, Virginia, USA, October 27-31, 2008, pages 543--554. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. For human eyes only: security and usability evaluation

            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
              WPES '12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society
              October 2012
              150 pages
              ISBN:9781450316637
              DOI:10.1145/2381966
              • General Chair:
              • Ting Yu,
              • Program Chair:
              • Nikita Borisov

              Copyright © 2012 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 15 October 2012

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate106of355submissions,30%

              Upcoming Conference

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

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader