Security Squid: Difference between revisions

From kitwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Security Squid is the name for a hardware-based password manager inspired by [https://www.themooltipass.com/ the mooltipass] hardware security manager, but with a set of different design goals which diverged from the final mooltipass products. It essentially imagines the same core functionality but with a very different set of goals regarding some aspects of security and all of the UX.
Security Squid is the name for a hardware-based password manager inspired by [https://www.themooltipass.com/ the mooltipass] hardware security manager, but with a set of different design goals which diverged from the final mooltipass products. It essentially imagines the same core functionality but with a very different set of goals regarding some aspects of security and all of the UX.


==Design Basis==
==Brainstorming==
In no particular order, here is a set of things which are important to security squid:
In no particular order, here is a set of things which are important to security squid:
===On Passwords===
* Passwords are a good mechanism for security compared to other choices!
* Every password should be strong
* Every password should be unique per usecase (e.g. one password per website/host/etc) - this is generally solved through use of a password manager, security squid should be no different!
* Passwords can be shared - note this is a positive and a negative! For users, being able to share a password can be helpful - I don't care if my friend knows my password to some random pizza shop, and I might actively want to share netflix (or similar) passwords. For owners of websites like netflix where users sharing passwords directly impacts revenue, this is a negative
* Passwords separate out who a user is from what a user knows - this also has positives and negatives: for users, it means they can do things like have many concurrent accounts since their identity isn't linked to their account security
* Passwords can be backed up - this is in contrast to something like u2f
* Passwords can be changed cheaply
* Providing a password doesn't involve sharing additional, hard-to-change personal info - I don't want to provide a cell phone number to every website!
===On UX===
* Every security mechanism is only as good as its UX - very secure things which have a terrible UX will be ignored or bypassed

Revision as of 21:54, 25 December 2022

Security Squid is the name for a hardware-based password manager inspired by the mooltipass hardware security manager, but with a set of different design goals which diverged from the final mooltipass products. It essentially imagines the same core functionality but with a very different set of goals regarding some aspects of security and all of the UX.

Brainstorming

In no particular order, here is a set of things which are important to security squid:

On Passwords

  • Passwords are a good mechanism for security compared to other choices!
  • Every password should be strong
  • Every password should be unique per usecase (e.g. one password per website/host/etc) - this is generally solved through use of a password manager, security squid should be no different!
  • Passwords can be shared - note this is a positive and a negative! For users, being able to share a password can be helpful - I don't care if my friend knows my password to some random pizza shop, and I might actively want to share netflix (or similar) passwords. For owners of websites like netflix where users sharing passwords directly impacts revenue, this is a negative
  • Passwords separate out who a user is from what a user knows - this also has positives and negatives: for users, it means they can do things like have many concurrent accounts since their identity isn't linked to their account security
  • Passwords can be backed up - this is in contrast to something like u2f
  • Passwords can be changed cheaply
  • Providing a password doesn't involve sharing additional, hard-to-change personal info - I don't want to provide a cell phone number to every website!

On UX

  • Every security mechanism is only as good as its UX - very secure things which have a terrible UX will be ignored or bypassed