DuoLungo：双因素认证的可用性研究
DuoLungo: Usability Study of Duo 2FA
AI总结：
DuoLungo研究了Duo双因素认证的可用性，发现其在任务完成时间和系统可用性评分上表现良好，但用户反馈其使用略有不便，同时提升了账户安全性。
摘要：
多因素认证（MFA）通过要求多个认证因素来增强登录安全性。随着攻击频率和复杂性增加，其采用率也有所上升。Duo被包括福布斯500强公司和主要教育机构广泛使用，但其可用性尚未得到充分或近期的考察。早期研究集中在初始部署的技术挑战，但未测量核心可用性指标，如任务完成时间和系统可用性量表（SUS）分数。这些结果已过时，源于MFA对典型用户而言尚不熟悉的时期。我们于2024-2025学年在加州大学尔湾分校进行了长期、大规模的Duo可用性研究，涉及2559名参与者。我们的分析使用了认证日志数据和对57名随机选定用户的调查。Duo推送任务的平均开销接近8秒，参与者描述为短到中等。开销随时间、专业领域和教育水平而变化。由于不完整Duo任务导致的认证失败率是4.35%，43.86%的调查受访者报告至少有一次Duo登录失败。Duo SUS得分为70，表明良好的可用性。参与者普遍认为Duo易于使用但有些烦人，同时报告了账户安全性的增加感。他们还描述了常见问题并提出了改进建议。
英文摘要：
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) enhances login security by requiring multiple authentication factors. Its adoption has increased in response to more frequent and sophisticated attacks. Duo is widely used by organizations including Fortune 500 companies and major educational institutions, yet its usability has not been examined thoroughly or recently. Earlier studies focused on technical challenges during initial deployment but did not measure core usability metrics such as task completion time or System Usability Scale (SUS) scores. These results are also outdated, originating from a time when MFA was less familiar to typical users. We conducted a long-term, large-scale Duo usability study at the University of California Irvine during the 2024-2025 academic year, involving 2559 participants. Our analysis uses authentication log data and a survey of 57 randomly selected users. The average overhead of a Duo Push task is nearly 8 seconds, which participants described as short to moderate. Overhead varies with time of day, field of study, and education level. The rate of authentication failures due to incomplete Duo tasks is 4.35 percent, and 43.86 percent of survey respondents reported at least one Duo login failure. The Duo SUS score is 70, indicating good usability. Participants generally find Duo easy to use but somewhat annoying, while also reporting an increased sense of account security. They also described common issues and offered suggestions for improvement.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
