Usable security: User preferences for authentication methods in eBanking and the effects of experience
Abstract
Multi-factor authentication involves the use of more than one mode in authentication processes and is typically employed to increase security compared to a fixed password (knowledge-based mode). This research compared three different eBanking authentication processes, a two-layer password (1-factor) method and two alternative 2-factor solutions. The 2-factor processes used One-Time-Passcodes (OTPs) delivered either via a small, single-use device or by text message to a mobile phone. The three authentication methods were compared in a repeated-measures experiment with 141 participants. Three user groups were balanced in the experiment to investigate the effect of experience (current users of the service) on perceptions of usability and security. Attitudes toward usability and observations were taken for each process. Other data gathered quality ratings, preferences and ranked comparisons regarding convenience and security issues. Both 2-factor methods scored significantly higher than the 1-factor method for eBanking authentication usability metrics overall, but experienced users gave higher scores to the 1-factor method they currently use. Overall preferences were spread evenly between the three methods. However, the majority of the participant sample perceived the 1-factor method they had most experience with as being the most secure and most convenient option. The results offer insight into customer attitudes important in their selection of authentication options: convenienc…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prior work has shown that lack of clarity about the functionality and security benefits of authentication methods leads to lower security ratings, lower acceptance, and reluctance to switch to a new authentication method.
“Prior work has shown that lack of clarity about the functionality and security benefits of authentication methods leads to lower security ratings, lower acceptance, and reluctance to switch to a new authentication method [34], [33], [55], [26].”
From Is FIDO2 the Kingslayer of User Authentication? A Comparative Usability Study of FIDO2 Passwordless Authentication (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ghorbani Lyastani, S., Schilling, M., Neumayr, M., Backes, M., & Bugiel, S. (2020) · 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp40000.2020.00047 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
A Tale of Two Studies: The Best and Worst of YubiKey Usability
Reynolds, J., Smith, T., Reese, K., Dickinson, L., Ruoti, S., & Seamons, K. (2018) · 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp.2018.00067 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
- Authors
- Weir, C. S., Douglas, G., Richardson, T., & Jack, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Lloyds Banking Group (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Weir, Catherine S.
- Venue
- Interacting with Computers
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-05
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 153-164
- ISSN
- 0953-5438 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059942829
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 13.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Interacting with Computers (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Authentication Protocols Security
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Keywords
- usable security, multi-factor authentication, two-factor authentication, authentication mechanisms, user experience, user preferences, perceived security, convenience, password authentication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review