The OpenID phishing issue is a hard one to solve, particularly because it aims to:
- be user-friendly, i.e. it should pass the mother-in-law test; and
- work on the web platform without special software or browser plugin
So, why is this suddenly a problem?
Not really, phishing is a perennial problem on the Internet that researchers and developers have been trying to solve for many years now. OpenID just accentuates it because RPs are unregulated. You don’t need any agreement with any OP, essentially anyone can set up a web site and put the OpenID login button. If OpenID takes off, RP sites will grow like ‘shrooms and user will get used to the idea that if they see the OpenID logo, they can type their URL to login. This only makes it harder for users to discern the good RPs from the bad ones.
This is really a social problem, and not a fault of the OpenID protocol. Users need only to trust their OP, and not the RPs that they interact with. If a rogue RP sends you to a page the poses as your OP but the URL doesn’t match your OP’s, you bail out. Doesn’t that sound simple? Well, the cold hard fact is that phishing works and there are research1 to prove that people get tricked very easily.
Authentication on the web is broken, and has been for a long time. The OpenID fanboys want OpenID to work on any old platform using only standard software, and so therefore are doomed to live in the world of broken authentication. This is fine if what you protect with your OpenID is worthless, but it seems clear that these types of protocol are going to be used to authenticate for things of value.
This is the root of the problem: if you want to protect anything of value, you have to do better than existing Web solutions. You need better client-side software.
The picture is not so sunny, however, because most users:
- won’t know / bother to install specialized plug-in or upgrade their browsers unless they’re forced to
- won’t know the difference between citibank.com/signon and citibank.com-banking-foobar.com
And even if they installed those anti-phishing toolbars and what not, they still fall for it!
While I can’t decipher the wirings of the mums-and-dads who fall prey for phishing attacks, I know that I get lazy sometimes and just don’t bother. Then I remember this little trick that Firefox introduced to ensure that users get the warning before installing extensions — Introduce a delay in the dialog box before it can be dismissed. That sort of worked for me, at least for that 5 seconds I can’t click so I might as well read a little.
So, here’s an idea for a browser (or plug-in) implementation:
IF form.action.domain IN trusted-domains
SHOW WARNING-DIALOG (delayed-dismissal=5 secs)
ADD form.action.domain TO trusted-domains
ELSE // cancel-button.clicked
The idea is that you should only submit passwords to sites that you have previously added to the trusted-domains list. This idea is not new, and has been proposed by several on the OpenID list.
Where I think could really make a difference is the way in which WARNING-DIALOG is constructed. It should contain the following:
- If the current page and the form target page are on different “effective domain”, emit warning. There are legitimate use cases for this, and we don’t want to overemphasize it, but it should raise suspicion.
- Display the “effective domain” of the form prominently.
- If the form target is not a HTTPS URL, emit warning.
- Warn the user that the target is not known to the browser to be trusted, and that this could be a sign of phishing.
- A continue button that is greyed out for 5 seconds to force the user to read the above information.
- A cancel button that is focused by default so hitting enter will dismiss the dialog and cancel the request.
An “effective domain” as I call it is defined as the DNS name in the URL stripped of insignificant parts. This basically means that we can use Mozilla’s Effective TLD Service that I blogged about earlier to summarize a URL for display to the user so that us.rd.yahoo.com becomes just yahoo.com, and it will correctly work for things like www.netbank.com.au, which returns netbank.com.au instead of com.au.
A sample dialog might look like:
Password will be sent to: xn--pypal-4ve.com
Password will be sent in the clear (unencrypted).
There are a few advantages to this proposal:
- it works on all password forms, not just for OpenID
- it forcefully disrupts the flow of the user and the delay may help the user to be more cautious
The downsides are:
- it only works for password phishing, other information such as credit card numbers will go through without warning
Even with these restrictions, I still think that it brings significant value in terms of mitigating password phishing attacks. This is of course very raw and there is much room for improvement. All comments and suggestions are welcome.
1 Thanks to Mike Beltzner for the links to these phishing research papers.
UPDATE: Kim Cameron’s latest blog post about Integrating OpenID and CardSpace has some nice pictures of the modal OpenID phishing attack scenario.