MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000544438 · doi:10.1109/pst47121.2019.8949033

Geographic Hints for Passphrase Authentication

2019· article· en· W3000544438 on OpenAlexaff
Alaadin Addas, Julie Thorpe, Amirali Salehi‐Abari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoginUsabilityComputer scienceAuthentication (law)RecallSession (web analytics)World Wide WebInformation retrievalHuman–computer interactionComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose and study the use of geographic hints to aid memorability of passphrase-style authentication secrets. Geographic hints are map locations that are selected by the user at the time of passphrase creation, and shown to the user as a hint at the time of passphrase login. We implement the GeoHints system and analyze how geographic hints impact the usability and security of passphrase-style secrets in a multi-session user study (n=38). The study involved testing for multiple passphrase interference-each participant was asked to recall 4 distinct passphrases. Our study indicates that while geographic hints showed promise for reducing memory interference, GeoHints (as implemented) does not produce a viable authentication system, as the login success rate was 25% 7-11 days after passphrase selection. We analyze the root causes of login errors, finding that most were due to inexact recall of free-form text input. This finding points towards opportunities to improve the system design, and we suggest improvements that we believe will lead to viable systems that employ geographic hints.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207