[ad_1]
Apple upset the world of connections last week by offering a new single sign-on (SSO) tool to collect and share as little data as possible. This was a deliberate blow against Facebook and Google, which currently operate the two main SSO services. However, even if Google was not satisfied with veiled confidential reviews, the company's connection manager is surprisingly happy to be able to compete with a new button. Although the connection buttons are relatively simple, they are much more resistant to common attacks such as phishing, which makes them much more powerful than the average password – provided they trust the network that offers them.
While Google is expanding its own two-factor Android system, I've discussed with Product Management Manager, Mark Risher, why the new Apple Connect button might not be as scary that it seems there.
This interview has been slightly modified for clarity.
It's hard to pinpoint the benefits of all these connection tools, but do you feel that things are getting better? From my personal experience, I am not asked for a password almost as often as it was five years ago.
Well, and it's much better. Usually, with passwords, they recommend capital letters, symbols and everything else, which, according to most people on the planet, is the best thing to do to improve their security. But it does not actually affect phishing, has no impact on password violations, and has no impact on password reuse. We think it's much more important to reduce the total number of passwords. Once you start federating accounts, that means you may still have some passwords, but a new service you just tried does not need a 750-person technical team dedicated to security. You do not have to create your own password database, and then manage all the responsibilities and risks involved.
You are also handling Google's SSO tool, which was competing with Apple last week at WWDC. Part of the argument seems to be that Apple's single sign-on system will collect less data and will further respect confidentiality. Do you feel like a fair critic?
I will take the blame that we have not really articulated what happens when you tap this button "Sign in with Google". Many people do not understand and some competitors have dragged him in the wrong direction. Maybe you click this button to inform all your friends that you have just connected to an embarrassing site. So it is really beneficial to ask someone to invigorate the space and clarify what it means and what is happening.
But some hints around the exit suggest that only one of them is pure, and the others are a bit corrupt, and obviously I do not like it. We only record the moments of authentication. It is not used for any type of re-targeting. It is not used in any kind of advertising. This is not distributed anywhere. And that's partly for the control of the user so he can go back and see what happened. Our security check page contains a page that says, "Here are all connected apps and you can break this connection." This current product, I have not seen how it will be built yet, but it sounds like: will also record this moment, then all emails ever sent by this company, which seems a lot more invasive. But we'll see how the details will work out.
Honestly, I think this technology will be better for the Internet and make people a lot safer. Even if they click the button of our competitors when they connect to sites, it's always better than typing a username and password, or more commonly, a username and password. a recycled password.
The basic principle of this type of connection is that you can connect once to Google (or Apple or Facebook), then extend this connection to everything else. But does this model still have a meaning? Why not have different levels of security for different services instead of putting all our eggs in one basket?
Part of your idea is that I have high security and low security services. But the problem is that things do not stay in this bucket of low security. We evolve with time. When I registered for Facebook for the first time in 2006, I did not find anything useful. Nowadays, it is much more important. And how many people come back and upgrade? It's pretty rare. The other problem is that we see a lot of side attacks in which a person does not directly attack your bank, it attacks your friend or your assistant and uses this account to send a message convincing of them. electronic transfer or by asking the answer to your secret question, which they can then consult to return to the site. So, the more you leave these accounts with loose protection, the more exposed you are.
People often push back the federated model by saying that we put all our eggs in one basket. It comes out of the language, but I think it's not the right metaphor. A better metaphor could be a bank. You can store your one hundred dollars in two ways: you can spread them throughout the house, placing a dollar in each drawer, as well as others under your mattress. You can also place it in a bank, which is a basket, but it's a basket protected by 12-inch-thick steel doors. This seems to be the best option!
You also encountered security issues around the Titan security key last year. Some security experts feared that any key made in China might be vulnerable. How much do you worry about interference from the supply chain?
This is certainly part of the threat model. It's something we've designed up to the protocol. I think some of the answers to the Titan key were unnecessarily alarmist, for several reasons. The first is that these concerns have always been part of our state of mind. So we said we would not trust people, regardless of their country of origin. That's why the chip is sealed. The chip has a certificate that is available to her. The chip is not scalable in the field. In fact, that's the reason we just made all these replacements because, by design, we can not use code to change it. There were many reasons why I did not think it was the real threat that people should be concerned about.
In recent years, the design of privacy protection in technology has evolved considerably. Companies are no longer trusted, but also the ways in which things can go wrong once all this data is available, shared and shared. combined in different ways. How did you answer that?
We really went through a paradigm shift. We used to say, it's your data, we'll just let you make a decision, and then it's up to you. We are now much more knowledgeable because our users are asking us to do it. You can see this manifest in the security check, which now gives you a customized set of recommendations based on your own templates. He used to say that you have 16 different devices, like to see if something was suspicious. And users said, "No, why do not you tell me what might seem suspicious?" Now we say, "You have 16 devices. We have not seen these four people for 90 days. Are you sure you did not give it to a friend and forgot to log out or, you know, sell it on eBay? There is a delicate balance: how to harass someone at the right amount, but also give him that kind of level of editorial protection that they expect?
The connection Apple raises this concern: even if it is a positive product, it is too heavy to force him to oblige developers. You could say the same thing about many of the Google projects you're talking about. Are you worried about not pushing users too much?
I'm worried about that. This is the problem of cynicism. Cynicism is when people do not trust your motives. You say, "This is a product that will keep you safer," and people say, "Hey, what are you going to do with it?" I think it is an ecosystem problem. We have a competitor who collects phone numbers as a security challenge, but who would also have used them to create a graph to redefine the targeting of the ad. It's bad for the whole ecosystem, because it prevents people from trusting us.
We are trying to set the bar very high. And we continue to look for places where we can refocus and recheck our best practices and continue to raise the bar. But to some extent, it's an ecosystem problem. The worst behavior on the market is the one everyone sees. And that's why some of Apple's hints have been a little awkward, from our point of view. Because we try to maintain ourselves at a high level.
[ad_2]
Source link