Fast and Secure Authentication in Virtual Reality Using Coordinated 3D Manipulation and Pointing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing need for usable and secure authentication in immersive virtual reality (VR). Established concepts (e.g., 2D authentication schemes) are vulnerable to observation attacks, and most alternatives are relatively slow. We present RubikAuth, an authentication scheme for VR where users authenticate quickly and secure by selecting digits from a virtual 3D cube that leverages coordinated 3D manipulation and pointing. We report on results from three studies comparing how pointing using eye gaze, head pose, and controller tapping impact RubikAuth’s usability, memorability, and observation resistance under three realistic threat models. We found that entering a four-symbol RubikAuth password is fast: 1.69–3.5 s using controller tapping, 2.35–4.68 s using head pose and 2.39 –4.92 s using eye gaze, and highly resilient to observations: 96–99.55% of observation attacks were unsuccessful. RubikAuth also has a large theoretical password space: 45 n for an n -symbols password. Our work underlines the importance of considering novel but realistic threat models beyond standard one-time attacks to fully assess the observation-resistance of authentication schemes. We conclude with an in-depth discussion of authentication systems for VR and outline five learned lessons for designing and evaluating authentication schemes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".