Identify and Verify Users Based on How They Type

LinucksGirl writes to share an IBM DeveloperWorks article that shows how to support user verification through keystroke-dynamics processing by modifying the GNOME Display Manager (GDM). You can create and store a one-way encrypted hash of your keystroke patterns when entering your user name. The article shows how to add code to GDM to read current keystroke patterns and permit a user to log in when the characteristics are a match. An interesting idea to be sure but I know I certainly am not that consistent when I type, so I'm skeptical of how well this may work.

Comments

not gonna work

[superwiz]

Well, it might work if they allow for a rather broad variation in the frequence of mistakes. But personally, I make much more typos depending on how tired I am and how much caffeine I've had lately. I would assume that others do too. So when I am well-rested I might appear to be a completely different person from when I am even slightly tired.

Re:not gonna work

[RobBebop]

Given the repletion required to type and retype our names and login IDs over the past 5-10 years, our fingers are conditioned to type these patterns quickly and repeatably.

I can type my typical "lastname/firstinitial" login name in about a third of a second. I can type my "firstname.lastname" in about half a second.

Given 5 minutes of practice with my name, you would probably be able to impersonate me - but as long as this system doesn't lock me out from my own account, this is a successful barrier that will make it harder for you to get into my system.

Then again... having a password that is hard to hack and running an operating system that is not easily hackable are stronger barriers that protect me from your infiltrations...

Re:not gonna work

[moderatorrater]

plus for me, this will only work if they test it against another login with the same username and password. The rhythm and speed of my typing in a username depends on which one it is, and the same goes for the password.

However, within the bounds of an identical username/password combination, I would imagine that it would work well for me. The problem is that if there are extenuating circumstances, this would lock me or someone else out of the computer. For instance, what if my wife needed to log in for me while I'm on a business trip? Or I die? Or I break my arm and have to type with one hand? I imagine the usefulness of this technology is in merely logging the "signature" pattern rather than locking someone else based on it. Bruce Schneier has the basic arguments and a much better analysis than I could produce.

Re:not gonna work

[TubeSteak]

Given the repletion required to type and retype our names and login IDs over the past 5-10 years, our fingers are conditioned to type these patterns quickly and repeatably. Never IM'ed or IRC'ed with a drunk person, have you?

On the upside, no more embarrassing drunken e-mails to come back and bite you!

Re:not gonna work

[Z34107]

There are characteristics in common with everything "normal" you type - for example, Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing(tm) back in the Glory Days of Windows 3.11 could tell me that my 4th finger on my left hand is weak - making a lot of typos on the "w", you see. It was nifty looking at the profiles of every user in that program for little tidbits like that, and logging onto my brother's profile and laughing as it commented how much he had "improved."

But... do those things apply when typing a password? The whole consistent rhythm and speed thing? Or maybe that makes it easier.

Perhaps a better solution would be to emulate voice recognition - train the security software to recognize your typing, and have it watch you as you're logged in. Just as you can train voice recognition to work with multiple speakers, you could train the security software to recognize "sober me", "drunk me", "caffeinated me", etc. (And not let "drunk me" send e-mail, and maybe schedule my development IDE processes at a higher priority for "caffeinated me", etc.)

Re:not gonna work

[pcgc1xn]

One thing which will kill it for sure is using a different keyboard.

Desktop to laptop - *slightly* different keyboard layout.
Different laptops - possibly different
US keyboard to English keyboard - hope your passphrase doesn't have any special characters or punctuation.
Any other language keyboard - those things are bad enough to type on at all, but trying to get your timing right? Forget it. If you have never had they joy of meeting one, as well as many of the punctuation keys being in different places, a few of the letters are as well. Just a few mind you, just enough so you fall back into touch typing and look back and find that all of your w's are actually z's

Some of these problems are probably not too bad for logging into Gnome, but the idea is basically limited to anything where you are physically in front of the machine you are logging into, and the input device is the same every time. If you are going to limit it to that, then requiring a webcam and doing image recognition is probably easier on both sides.

And all you need is a slightly cleverer key logger to defeat it - instead of recording the keystrokes in order, you need to record the keystrokes and time.

Good to see people thinking about how to improve on passwords though.

Oww I broke a finger...

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

...And now I can't log in.

Pass.

That's OK

[treeves]

My guess is that your inconsistency is part of what distinguishes you from other typists and the software uses that information to its advantage. Other people are more consistent, less consistent, inconsistent in different ways. I know I type with about four fingers: my left index finger, my right index and middle fingers, and my right thumb, and I also know I tend to make certain typos more often than others. I suspect that those things contribute to the distinct pattern in my typing that could be identified. Still, I'm sure I would not want to use to such a scheme for identity verification.

inconsistent

[flynt]

An interesting idea to be sure but I know I certainly am not that consistent when I type, so I'm skeptical of how well this may work.

That's precisely what some statistical methods are designed to do, find patterns about the inconsistencies. I haven't read this proposal, so can't comment more, but 'leaning' in the presence of variation is basically what modern statistics is all about.

Re:Obvious issue

[baudilus]

I'd be much happier if Blackberries had Breathalyzers before they allow people to email me at 2 AM. Good grief!

It'll never work

[amplt1337]

How on God's green earth am I going to write down my keystroke patterns on a sticky note on my monitor???

All Cell phones , Not just the BBs

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Please, drunk dialing should be a civil infraction penalized in this manner

for each # called...

1st offense:
        A stern warning.
2nd offense:
        $250 restitution to the victim, 1 months probation
3rd offense:
        Death.

Accidents?

[blueboy31]

This works great until you lose a finger, thumb, hand, etc in that freak accident. Talk about adding insult to injury -- your own computer won't even accept you with your newfound handicap!

Large enough sample set?

[192939495969798999]

I don't think a username is enough of a sample set to determine a typing pattern. Wouldn't you need to copy down a paragraph of text to have any chance of determining patterns in typing style? I.e. at the very least, "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy sleeping dog" type stuff to hit all the characters?

Oblig Bash quote

[xtracto]

From bash.org

  HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU TELL THAT I'M 13 BY LOOKING AT WHAT I'M WRITEING??????????????????????

stupid lameness filterstupid lameness filterstupid lameness filterstupid lameness filter stupid lameness filter Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters. Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.