仅供人眼使用:安全性和可用性评估

A. Pashalidis, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, Xavier Ferrer Aran, Beñat Bermejo Olaizola
{"title":"仅供人眼使用:安全性和可用性评估","authors":"A. Pashalidis, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, Xavier Ferrer Aran, Beñat Bermejo Olaizola","doi":"10.1145/2381966.2381984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":74537,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society","volume":"84 1","pages":"129-140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"For human eyes only: security and usability evaluation\",\"authors\":\"A. Pashalidis, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, Xavier Ferrer Aran, Beñat Bermejo Olaizola\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2381966.2381984\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"129-140\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2381966.2381984\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2381966.2381984","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

本文介绍了“For Human Eyes Only”(FHEO),我们的Firefox扩展,它使人们能够方便地发布在线消息,如短邮件,评论和推文,以一种不鼓励自动处理这些消息的形式。与CAPTCHA系统类似,FHEO会在不同程度上扭曲文本。我们提供了四种默认失真配置文件的安全性分析,以及显示这些配置文件如何影响响应时间和准确理解的可用性分析。我们的结果说明了在面对使用当前现成的光学字符识别技术以发起各种攻击的对手时出现的安全性/可用性权衡。特别是两个概要文件,它们实现了一定程度的保护,这似乎证明了它们在许多情况下各自的可用性退化是合理的。然而,对于我们所考虑的对手,“最强”失真配置文件似乎并没有提供很大的额外安全裕度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
For human eyes only: security and usability evaluation
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Study of Users' Privacy Preferences for Data Sharing on Symptoms-Tracking/Health App. Preserving Genomic Privacy via Selective Sharing. For human eyes only: security and usability evaluation Secure communication over diverse transports: [short paper] A machine learning solution to assess privacy policy completeness: (short paper)
×
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