How many FIDO protocols are needed? Analysing the technology, security and compliance

IF 23.8 1区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS ACM Computing Surveys Pub Date : 2024-03-27 DOI:10.1145/3654661
Anna Angelogianni, Ilias Politis, Christos Xenakis
{"title":"How many FIDO protocols are needed? Analysing the technology, security and compliance","authors":"Anna Angelogianni, Ilias Politis, Christos Xenakis","doi":"10.1145/3654661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To overcome the security vulnerabilities caused by weak passwords, thus bridge the gap between user friendly interfaces and advanced security features, the Fast IDentity Online (FIDO) alliance defined a number of authentication protocols. The existing literature leverages all versions of the FIDO protocols, without indicating the reasons behind the choice of each individual FIDO protocol (i.e., U2F, UAF, FIDO2). Inevitably, the question ”which protocol is more suitable per case” becomes significant. To provide an answer to the previous question, this paper performs a thorough comparative analysis on the different protocol specifications and their technological and market support, to identify whether any protocol has become obsolete. To reach to a conclusion, the proposed approach i) explores the existing literature, ii) analyses the specifications released by the FIDO Alliance, elaborating on the security characteristics, iii) inspects the technical adoption by the industry and iv) investigates the compliance of the FIDO with standards, regulations and other identity verification protocols. Our results indicate that FIDO2 is the most widely adopted solution; however, U2F remains supported by numerous web services as a two-factor authentication (2FA) choice, while UAF continues to be utilized in mobile clients seeking to offer the Transaction Confirmation feature.</p>","PeriodicalId":50926,"journal":{"name":"ACM Computing Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":23.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Computing Surveys","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3654661","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To overcome the security vulnerabilities caused by weak passwords, thus bridge the gap between user friendly interfaces and advanced security features, the Fast IDentity Online (FIDO) alliance defined a number of authentication protocols. The existing literature leverages all versions of the FIDO protocols, without indicating the reasons behind the choice of each individual FIDO protocol (i.e., U2F, UAF, FIDO2). Inevitably, the question ”which protocol is more suitable per case” becomes significant. To provide an answer to the previous question, this paper performs a thorough comparative analysis on the different protocol specifications and their technological and market support, to identify whether any protocol has become obsolete. To reach to a conclusion, the proposed approach i) explores the existing literature, ii) analyses the specifications released by the FIDO Alliance, elaborating on the security characteristics, iii) inspects the technical adoption by the industry and iv) investigates the compliance of the FIDO with standards, regulations and other identity verification protocols. Our results indicate that FIDO2 is the most widely adopted solution; however, U2F remains supported by numerous web services as a two-factor authentication (2FA) choice, while UAF continues to be utilized in mobile clients seeking to offer the Transaction Confirmation feature.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
需要多少个 FIDO 协议?分析技术、安全性和合规性
为了克服弱密码造成的安全漏洞,从而缩小用户友好界面与高级安全功能之间的差距,快速身份在线(FIDO)联盟定义了一系列身份验证协议。现有文献利用了所有版本的 FIDO 协议,但没有说明选择每个 FIDO 协议(即 U2F、UAF、FIDO2)背后的原因。不可避免地,"哪种协议更适合每种情况 "成为一个重要问题。为了回答前一个问题,本文对不同的协议规范及其技术和市场支持进行了全面的比较分析,以确定是否有任何协议已经过时。为了得出结论,本文提出了以下方法:i) 探讨现有文献;ii) 分析 FIDO 联盟发布的规范,详细阐述其安全特性;iii) 检查行业在技术上的采用情况;iv) 调查 FIDO 与标准、法规和其他身份验证协议的一致性。我们的研究结果表明,FIDO2 是最广泛采用的解决方案;然而,U2F 仍然得到众多网络服务的支持,成为双因素身份验证(2FA)的一种选择,而 UAF 则继续在寻求提供交易确认功能的移动客户端中使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Computing Surveys
ACM Computing Surveys 工程技术-计算机:理论方法
CiteScore
33.20
自引率
0.60%
发文量
372
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: ACM Computing Surveys is an academic journal that focuses on publishing surveys and tutorials on various areas of computing research and practice. The journal aims to provide comprehensive and easily understandable articles that guide readers through the literature and help them understand topics outside their specialties. In terms of impact, CSUR has a high reputation with a 2022 Impact Factor of 16.6. It is ranked 3rd out of 111 journals in the field of Computer Science Theory & Methods. ACM Computing Surveys is indexed and abstracted in various services, including AI2 Semantic Scholar, Baidu, Clarivate/ISI: JCR, CNKI, DeepDyve, DTU, EBSCO: EDS/HOST, and IET Inspec, among others.
期刊最新文献
How to Improve Video Analytics with Action Recognition: A Survey When Federated Learning Meets Privacy-Preserving Computation A review and benchmark of feature importance methods for neural networks Enabling Technologies and Techniques for Floor Identification A Comprehensive Analysis of Explainable AI for Malware Hunting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1