Why Do Developers Get Password Storage Wrong? A Qualitative Usability Study

Passwords are still a mainstay of various security systems, as well as the cause of many usability issues. For end-users, many of these issues have been studied extensively, highlighting problems and informing design decisions for better policies and motivating research into alternatives. However, end-users are not the only ones who have usability problems with passwords! Developers who are tasked with writing the code by which passwords are stored must do so securely. Yet history has shown that this complex task often fails due to human error with catastrophic results. While an end-user who selects a bad password can have dire consequences, the consequences of a developer who forgets to hash and salt a password database can lead to far larger problems. In this paper we present a first qualitative usability study with 20 computer science students to discover how developers deal with password storage and to inform research into aiding developers in the creation of secure password systems

Identifying reputation collectors in community question answering (CQA) sites: Exploring the dark side of social media

YesThis research aims to identify users who are posting as well as encouraging others to post low-quality and duplicate contents on community question answering sites. The good guys called Caretakers and the bad guys called Reputation Collectors are characterised by their behaviour, answering pattern and reputation points. The proposed system is developed and analysed over publicly available Stack Exchange data dump. A graph based methodology is employed to derive the characteristic of Reputation Collectors and Caretakers. Results reveal that Reputation Collectors are primary sources of low-quality answers as well as answers to duplicate questions posted on the site. The Caretakers answer limited questions of challenging nature and fetches maximum reputation against those questions whereas Reputation Collectors answers have so many low-quality and duplicate questions to gain the reputation point. We have developed algorithms to identify the Caretakers and Reputation Collectors of the site. Our analysis finds that 1.05% of Reputation Collectors post 18.88% of low quality answers. This study extends previous research by identifying the Reputation Collectors and 2 how they collect their reputation points