3 ms·

Sandboxing to prevent malware installation and password managers to prevent phishing are excellent technical workarounds for this.

jlarocco 7y ago
Except they're not, because a dumb enough user isn't going to think about their password manager, and they'll enter their password anyway.
- mikeash 7y ago
  They won’t even know what it is.
tialaramex 7y ago
For the latter, as one of my sibling posts points out the user will go "Huh, stupid password manager didn't fill out my password - I'll have to do it manually". Often the password manager even helps them do this in the name of user convenience. Only Brick wall UX works. That's what WebAuthn does here. Don't offer the user a way to "continue anyway", don't ask them confusing questions, just a brick wall and no way forward. The user will probably be emotional. Scammers work hard to make your users afraid, or horny, or confused, and so they really, really want to give their bank credentials to https://honest-this-is-your-bank.not-a-scam.example/tmp/backup/legitimate-sign-in-page.HTM https://honest-this-is-your-bank.not-a-scam.example/tmp/back... and nothing you can tell them is going to make them stop wanting to do that. The brick wall doesn't care about the user's emotional state and will stubbornly resist. Maybe the user will eventually realise it was a scam, maybe they won't, the brick wall doesn't know or care either way. Brick Wall UX even helps the software engineer. When a manager asks if you can't just add a banner that says "Hi, this is our new web site, please continue to use your old credentials" and thus undo every second of training about phishing your users ever got the answer with a Brick Wall UX is that literally can't work. No matter how much they beg and cajole and swear it's just a temporary workaround, it will not work at all, so they're just going to have to go tell the Big Boss that no matter how much was spent on new-brand-name.example the login system will have to remain forever on login3.long-forgotten-brand.example because that's what some idiot picked five years ago then it was set up and too bad.
- gknoy 7y ago
  Can you elaborate on what "brick wall UX" is like to use as a user, or how one implements it? Are there known examples you could point me at? (It's a term I haven't heard before, and haven't noticed anything when searching.)
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I don't think it's a known term; it seems something GP created. As for how it works, the concept is simple: if the user wants to do the wrong or potentially insecure thing, just don't let them, period. That's the brick wall. I'm of two minds about this personally. On the one hand, I appreciate the argument that the only thing that can prevent businesses from doing something bad, stupid or abusive is if it's legally, physically or by design impossible. On the other hand, as a pro user, I do appreciate the ability to override software when it mistakenly tries to prevent me from doing something.
    - jake_the_third 7y ago
      Unless the developer has enough foresight to account for, and sufficiently handle, every single instance where that brick wall would stop a legitimate false positive, I stand vehemently against them. There are enough examples in the past that clearly demonstrate that developers are not benevolent or competent enough to have complete and final control over the software their users run. Sometimes this control even results in the exact opposite of what the developers originally intended, as was the case with firefox addons just a couple of days ago. Ultimate control over software should always reside in the hands of the user.
    - Godel_unicode 7y ago
      > as a pro user, I do appreciate the ability to override software when it mistakenly tries to prevent me from doing something. This is really the core problem in security; the world is designed for people like this by people like this, without any serious thought for the implications for the overwhelming majority of users. Do not include "I know what I'm doing" escape hatches, and security will magically get better for the many at the expense of convenience for the few.

jlarocco 7y ago

Except they're not, because a dumb enough user isn't going to think about their password manager, and they'll enter their password anyway.

mikeash 7y ago
They won’t even know what it is.

tialaramex 7y ago

For the latter, as one of my sibling posts points out the user will go "Huh, stupid password manager didn't fill out my password - I'll have to do it manually". Often the password manager even helps them do this in the name of user convenience. Only Brick wall UX works. That's what WebAuthn does here. Don't offer the user a way to "continue anyway", don't ask them confusing questions, just a brick wall and no way forward. The user will probably be emotional. Scammers work hard to make your users afraid, or horny, or confused, and so they really, really want to give their bank credentials to https://honest-this-is-your-bank.not-a-scam.example/tmp/backup/legitimate-sign-in-page.HTM https://honest-this-is-your-bank.not-a-scam.example/tmp/back... and nothing you can tell them is going to make them stop wanting to do that. The brick wall doesn't care about the user's emotional state and will stubbornly resist. Maybe the user will eventually realise it was a scam, maybe they won't, the brick wall doesn't know or care either way. Brick Wall UX even helps the software engineer. When a manager asks if you can't just add a banner that says "Hi, this is our new web site, please continue to use your old credentials" and thus undo every second of training about phishing your users ever got the answer with a Brick Wall UX is that literally can't work. No matter how much they beg and cajole and swear it's just a temporary workaround, it will not work at all, so they're just going to have to go tell the Big Boss that no matter how much was spent on new-brand-name.example the login system will have to remain forever on login3.long-forgotten-brand.example because that's what some idiot picked five years ago then it was set up and too bad.

gknoy 7y ago
Can you elaborate on what "brick wall UX" is like to use as a user, or how one implements it? Are there known examples you could point me at? (It's a term I haven't heard before, and haven't noticed anything when searching.)
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I don't think it's a known term; it seems something GP created. As for how it works, the concept is simple: if the user wants to do the wrong or potentially insecure thing, just don't let them, period. That's the brick wall. I'm of two minds about this personally. On the one hand, I appreciate the argument that the only thing that can prevent businesses from doing something bad, stupid or abusive is if it's legally, physically or by design impossible. On the other hand, as a pro user, I do appreciate the ability to override software when it mistakenly tries to prevent me from doing something.
  - jake_the_third 7y ago
    Unless the developer has enough foresight to account for, and sufficiently handle, every single instance where that brick wall would stop a legitimate false positive, I stand vehemently against them. There are enough examples in the past that clearly demonstrate that developers are not benevolent or competent enough to have complete and final control over the software their users run. Sometimes this control even results in the exact opposite of what the developers originally intended, as was the case with firefox addons just a couple of days ago. Ultimate control over software should always reside in the hands of the user.
  - Godel_unicode 7y ago
    > as a pro user, I do appreciate the ability to override software when it mistakenly tries to prevent me from doing something. This is really the core problem in security; the world is designed for people like this by people like this, without any serious thought for the implications for the overwhelming majority of users. Do not include "I know what I'm doing" escape hatches, and security will magically get better for the many at the expense of convenience for the few.