Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Keep on rating – on the systematic rating and comparison of authentication schemes
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Keep on rating – on the systematic rating and comparison of authentication schemes
Do you wish to request the book?
Keep on rating – on the systematic rating and comparison of authentication schemes
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Keep on rating – on the systematic rating and comparison of authentication schemes
2019
Overview
PurposeSix years ago, Bonneau et al. (2012) proposed a framework to compare authentication schemes to the ubiquitous text password. Even though their work did not reveal an alternative outperforming the text password on every criterion, the framework can support decision makers in finding suitable solutions for specific authentication contexts. The purpose of this paper is to extend and update the database, thereby discussing benefits, limitations and suggestions for continuing the development of the framework.Design/methodology/approachThis paper revisits the rating process and describes the application of an extended version of the original framework to an additional 40 authentication schemes identified in a literature review. All schemes were rated in terms of 25 objective features assigned to the three main criteria: usability, deployability and security.FindingsThe rating process and results are presented along with a discussion of the benefits and pitfalls of the rating process.Research limitations/implicationsWhile the extended framework, in general, proves suitable for rating and comparing authentication schemes, ambiguities in the rating could be solved by providing clearer definitions and cut-off values. Further, the extension of the framework with subjective user perceptions that sometimes differ from objective ratings could be beneficial.Originality/valueThe results of the rating are made publicly available in an authentication choice support system named ACCESS to support decision makers and researchers and to foster the further extension of the knowledge base and future development of the extended rating framework.
Publisher
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Subject
