Just because Jakob says it doesn’t make it right (or smart)

in Accessibility, Computers, Security, Usability, Website

In Jakob Nielsen’s June 23, 2009 Alertbox post entitled, “Stop Password Masking“, Mr. Neilsen makes the argument that it’s time to stop masking passwords (showing stars or bullets instead of the actual keystrokes) in web forms.  He argues two main points as to why this “archaic” practice should be discontinued:

  1. Password masking causes users to make more errors during entry, thus making users less confident which then leads to lost business, and,
  2. If users are uncertain as to whether or not they’ll be able to properly enter passwords into masked input boxes they will either resort to keeping their passwords in a text file to copy & paste or “employ overly simple passwords.”

While I can see where he’s coming from here, I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of any website losing customers/business in my 12 years of being a website designer/IT professional because its users were lacking in confidence because their passwords were masked.  For him to validly make that claim I’d like to see him back that up with some real world metrics from companies who have masked login systems.   On the other hand, I will give limited credence to his second argument – that people may use overly simple passwords or keep their passwords in a text file.

However… masked passwords aren’t the only (or primary in my opinion) reason why people use overly simplistic passwords or store passwords in text files on their computers.  In fact, I can give you an example of the latter that I know happens frequently.  Some of my World of Warcraft friends are very concerned about keyloggers (which are somewhat pervasive in fake WoW addons) – specifically those who haven’t bothered to buy the Blizzard Authenticator’s or use the Blizzard Authenticator iPhone app.  So, as a surrogate for that higher level of security, they instead store their passwords in a text file on their desktop and copy/paste their password into the password prompt each time they login to that.

While that method does avoid getting their password caught by a keylogger, it opens them up to accidentally pasting their password into in-game chat or private messages.  Obviously not a very smart, or secure, method anyway.

To illustrate the other part of Mr. Nielsen’s second point I can give you a real world example of people who have overly simplistic passwords: our parents generation.  While I’m not saying my parents have overly simplistic passwords (thankfully my parents have been smart enough to not share them with me when I’m doing tech support for them), I know of many people who are my father’s age – in their 60’s and 70’s – whose passwords are the name of their cats or their kids or their spouses simply because it’s easy to remember.  Also, because they don’t worry about security as much as younger, erm, more aware folks do.

A great example of why removing password masking is a bad idea stems from one of the great features of web browsers that we sometimes take for granted these days: local login info storage.  A quick example: Timmy is at his office and walks away from his computer to get a cup of coffee.  Timmy forgets to lock his workstation.  Mark is on his way to a meeting and forgets exactly which conference room his meeting is in.  As Mark is walking through the office, he walks by Timmy’s desk and notices that his workstation is unlocked.  Mark figures since no one is around and the workstation is unlocked he can use the computer briefly to check his e-mail and find out which conference room his meeting is in.

When Mark opens up the web browser on Timmy’s workstation, it takes him directly to Timmy’s homepage – Gmail.com.  Timmy stores his username and password for Gmail.com on his web browser.  Because the password box for Gmail.com is now unmasked (in Mr.Nielsen’s world), Mark has now inadvertently seen Timmy’s username AND password.  Immediately, Timmy has now opened himself up for all kind of potential harm and privacy issues.  If Mark is a malicious guy and Timmy doesn’t use different passwords for other services, Mark may potentially have access to Timmy’s online banking, credit cards, investment accounts, and other avenues of identity theft.

While the argument could easily be made that even with obfuscated password fields Mark could still access Timmy’s e-mail account and read his mail/change his password in the same situation, he would still only have access to that one account after the password was changed.  Without seeing Timmy’s password, he wouldn’t know what password he was using or if he used it for all of his accounts.

In closing, for once I’ll have to go against what Jakob Nielsen says and firmly stand against the removal of password masking in web- and software-based forms.  It’s just not safe.  The potential for identity theft is higher without obfuscation.

For further reading on this topic, have a look at one of the best responses to Mr. Nielsen’s Alertbox post, which came from Kyle Weems at CSSquirrel.  He also posted a hilarious comic to go with his response.  Both are totally worth reading.

4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. I agree with you on this, although I think a better example of keeping password masking would be the over-the-shoulder looker. The person who might be walking around an office pretending to delivering a box or something and watching the screens of people and see the passwords that they enter far easier than it would be to try to catch what they type upon the keyboard.

  2. I actually avoided that particular example because it’s the common example and it’s extremely easy to defeat that one (look over your shoulder, scrunch closer to your monitor, ask people nearby to turn around, etc.).

    I decided to go with two more obscure examples because they’re less obvious.

  3. Any example has holes, sadly. But there’s usually a reason an example is a common one, because it happens often enough. Regardless of what the example is, there are still plenty of people that don’t always think about their security, and sometimes will view things like a password as an un-needed burden. This type of stuff is there for their protection.

    What is even more impressive, there are some sites (such as my banks website) use the masking for the user-name to give the extra security.

  4. My complaint isn’t the masking, it’s sites that only allow 3 attempts but have heavily restricted what you can use for a password, so you end up using a password so far from what you usually use (system hopefully and not the same password everywhere) that you’re locked out each and every time. I still can’t figure out why there is any type of restriction on what I can use in a password outside of length. You think you are making my password stronger for me, but you’re just reducing the number of options possible and therefore making my password weaker…

Leave a Reply

Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>