Convenience Trumps Security
Restricting access to sensitive information is part of our social make up. It doesn't really have anything to do with computers. It just so happens for the last 30 years, they're the medium we use to access and protect that information. Passwords came before the user identity and were simply a cheap (cost and time) method of preventing access to those without the 'knowledge'. Auditing and better user management approaches resulted in individual identities, coupled with individual passwords, providing an additional layer of security. All sounds great. What's the problem then?
Are There Alternatives & Do We Need Them?
The simple answer is yes, there are alternatives and in some circumstances, yes we do need them. There are certainly aspects of password management that can help with security, if alternatives or additional approaches can't be used or aren't available. Password storage should go down the 'hash don't encrypt' avenue, with some basic password complexity requirements in place. Albeit making those requirements too severe often results in the writing down on a post-it issue...
Practical alternatives seem to be few and far between (albeit feel free to correct me on this). By practical I'm referring to both cost (time and monetary) and usability (good type-I and type-II error rates, convenient). So biometrics have been around a while. Stuff like iris and finger print scanning as well as facial recognition. All three are pretty popular at most large-scale international airports, mainly as the high investment levels can be justified. But what about things like web applications? Any use of biometric technology at this level would require quite a bit of outlay for new capture technology and quite possibly introduces privacy issues surrounding how that physical information is stored or processed (albeit hashs of the appropriate data would probably be used).
There are also things like one-time-passwords, especially using mobile phones instead of tokens. But is the extra effort in deployment and training, enough to warrant the outlay and potential user backlash? This would clearly boil down to a risk assessment of the information being protected, which the end user could probably not articulate.
Why We Still Use Them...
Passwords aren't going anywhere for a long time. For several reasons. Firstly it's cheap. Secondly it's well known by developers, frameworks, libraries, but most importantly the end user. Even a total IT avoider, is aware of the concept of a password. If that awareness changes, there is suddenly an extra barrier-to-entry for your new service, application or website to be successful. No one wants that.
Thirdly, there are several 'bolt on' approaches to using a username and password combination. Thinking of things like step-up authentication and knowledge based authentication. If a site or resource within a site is deemed to require additional security, further measures can be taken that don't necessarily require a brand new approach to authentication, if a certain risk threshold is breached.
As familiarity with password management matures, even the most non-technical of end users, will become used to using passphrases, complex passwords, unique passwords per applications and so on. As such, developers will become more familiar with password hashing and salting, data splitting and further storage protection. Whilst all are perhaps sticking plaster approaches, the password will be around for a long time to come.
By Simon Moffatt