IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Understood, but you're use case #1
I don't have your IWE experience, so your answers would help design the "casual" system. But, it sounds like you're still one design level up from that--still trying to determine market foci. I do think you're going to find different styles for different markets (it's a Prego problem: [link|http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_09_06_a_ketchup.html|http://www.gladwell....06_a_ketchup.html]), but short of a major research investment, I'm not sure how far you'll get determining those. The stickier issue is that authentication systems tend to be tightly integrated into applications, so an "administrative setting" will be tough. It might be best to just make your auth system as pluggable as possible and wait for requests from deployers.

Anyway, here's my best guess on where those segments would center and their requirements:

1. Relaxed: Adding an account is very easy, 1 step if possible, but keep the spam low through restrictions (quotas, IP address auditing). Forgotten passwords are emailed in plain text.

2. Strict: Adding accounts is two-factor, multiple steps (I've used folkert's email-a-URL before and it works well). Changing your pw if you already know it is easy. If you don't, resetting it should be subject to the _same_ auth process as creating it (need an email or IP or ..? in addition to name). In other words, if you're going to make resetting tough, make account creation equally tough.

3. Corporate: Restricted set of users; accounts are hard to get and not administered via the web. Make IIS or PAM handle it for the first release, then add your own later on if needed. All auth traffic is out-of-band.

4. Paranoid: Private keys. :)
New I can do private keys...
I keep them on a 32MB Thumb.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]
Here is an example: [link|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
     zIWT meta: Which is better: - (admin) - (66)
         3) -NT - (mmoffitt)
         1) - (jb4) - (3)
             Not for long, at least... -NT - (admin) - (2)
                 Is that a threat?!? -NT - (jb4) - (1)
                     You should know by now... - (admin)
         3, with verification - (Arkadiy) - (29)
             Seconded. -NT - (Yendor)
             NO - (FuManChu) - (27)
                 Er, buh? - (admin) - (3)
                     That's enough of a detriment not to warrant the risk IMO -NT - (FuManChu) - (2)
                         ? -NT - (admin) - (1)
                             ?? -NT - (drewk)
                 Yeah - (Yendor) - (11)
                     How is that insecure? - (FuManChu) - (2)
                         You're unclear on this. - (admin) - (1)
                             See below. -NT - (FuManChu)
                     You only need one field labeled "Hint" - (tuberculosis) - (7)
                         Sure... - (Yendor) - (6)
                             Bah. - (admin)
                             Not quite - (FuManChu) - (4)
                                 And my point is... - (Yendor) - (3)
                                     I have a standard formula I use for passwords. - (folkert) - (2)
                                         I also have a standard formula - (daemon) - (1)
                                             Ding, Ding, Ding. - (folkert)
                 It's only insecure if the user is allowed to proceed - (imric) - (10)
                     Bah. Risk is the issue. - (FuManChu) - (9)
                         So what's YOUR suggestion? -NT - (admin) - (4)
                             Unfortunately for you #1 ;) - (FuManChu) - (3)
                                 WTF? - (admin) - (2)
                                     Sorry. You're right. I didn't read carefully. - (FuManChu) - (1)
                                         So how does that change your answer? - (admin)
                         Same risk than we have now during login. - (imric) - (2)
                             Same outcome, different risk--the attack surface has doubled -NT - (FuManChu)
                             Not mine. - (CRConrad)
                         Can we please weight the risks - (Arkadiy)
         3) with some safeguards? - (Another Scott)
         4) WikiWay: everything wide open ... muuuaaaahahahahahaha -NT - (drewk) - (1)
             Shaddap wid' yer shaddin' ap... -NT - (admin)
         3 with a "what is your dog's name?" thingie -NT - (Silverlock)
         I'll join Ark, Scott(2), Don(Silverback), and YendorMike: 3+ - (CRConrad) - (2)
             <raises hand> on that last bit. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
             Aye - 3) with - (imric)
         Another few options: - (admin) - (9)
             I'd rather not vote on solutions until we discuss risks - (FuManChu) - (8)
                 Re: I'd rather not vote on solutions until we discuss risks - (admin) - (7)
                     Okay, start with costs of current proposals - (FuManChu) - (3)
                         Missed the point. :-) - (admin) - (2)
                             Understood, but you're use case #1 - (FuManChu) - (1)
                                 I can do private keys... - (folkert)
                     What do you want the software to do? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                         Nope, wrong - (drewk) - (1)
                             Yes, a *good* challenge question would be needed. - (Another Scott)
         how about 4, the way we do it now - (daemon) - (3)
             Which is? - (Another Scott)
             And what would that be? - (admin) - (1)
                 the way it works now - (daemon)
         How about 5... - (jb4)
         16) Storing them encrypted with a "reset my password" featur - (folkert)
         A variation on 2) - (altmann)
         3), with a question 1st. -NT - (broomberg)
         3 with a proviso - (ChrisR) - (1)
             I like that! -NT - (Arkadiy)
         3. Puts the onus of keeping valid email address on user. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         3 -NT - (pwhysall)
         6. - (static)
         "zIWT meta: Which is better:" Voting/Ratification (new thread) - (folkert)

In conclusion, lithium in the water supply.
83 ms