The document presents a case study examining the relationship between usability and security in mobile operating systems (Android, iOS, and Windows), highlighting the challenges and findings from a survey of smartphone users. The study discovered a positive correlation between security and usability ratings, suggesting that modern smartphones can effectively meet both user needs. It concludes that while users prioritize security features, the design of user interfaces must be improved to facilitate access to these features.

1. USABILITY VS SECURITY: A CASE
STUDY OF ANDROID, IOS AND
WINDOWS
Rajiv Ranjan Singh
Department of Computer Science
Shyam Lal College (Evening)
University of Delhi
Shaurye Aggawal
Amity International School
Saket, Delhi, INDIA

2. THE PRESENTATION OUTLINE
 Introduction
 Research Questions
 Experimental Design
 Participants
 Materials and Apparatus
 Results
 Summary and Discussion
 Future Scope and Suggestions
 Conclusion 2

3. INTRODUCTION
 Many mobile phones OS
 Many apps added daily
 Lots of Security features
 Financial Transactions on Mobile
 Different design environment
 Computer systems must employ mechanisms that are difficult
to use!
 Convenience is the Antithesis to Security
3

4. ANDROID OS
4

5. APPLE IOS
5

6. WINDOWS
6

7. LATEST FROM THE SECURITY DOMAIN
7

8. CHALLENGES
 Security features usually complex
 Make Security Usable
 Balance Security vs Usability
 “Don't make me think” - Steve Krug's first law of
usability
 Intuitive navigation
 Conformity to user expectations 8

9. CHALLENGES
 Attackers know that your efforts to enhance usability
utilize accepted conventions
 Attackers will exploit these conventions to their
advantage
 Complex mechanisms hard to configure
 Hard to implement correctly
 This weakens security 9

10. PSYCHOLOGICAL ACCEPTABILITY
 Saltzer & Schroeder 1975 The Protection of Information
in Computer Systems
 Examined several 'design principles' associated with
security
 Psychological acceptability is the principle that the
closer security conforms to user expectations the better
10

11. PRINCIPLE OF PSYCHOLOGY
ACCEPTABILITY
 “It is essential that the human interface be
designed for ease of use, so that users
routinely and automatically apply the protection
mechanism correctly. Also, to the extent that
the user’s mental image of his protection goals
matches the mechanism he must use, mistakes
will be minimized. If he must translate his
image of his protection into a radically different
specification language, he will make errors.”
Jerome Saltzer & Michael Schroeder
(1975)

12. PRINCIPLE OF PSYCHOLOGY
ACCEPTABILITY
 Complex configurations lead to errors, and
the less tech-savvy the users are, the worse
the security problems will be.
 “How can one create mechanisms that are
easy to use, provide the protection
mechanism necessary, and are unobtrusive
to use, for mobile users ranging from novice
users to app develpoers?” – an open
question

13. HUMANS & SECURITY
 Are usability and security competing goals?
 Humans are the weakest link in the security chain.
 Security systems are social as well as technical.
 Security mechanisms require extra work. Humans
find shortcuts and workarounds.
 Users will find ways to evade security demands that
are considered unreasonable or burdensome.

14. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Can usability and security co-exist?
 Does increased security reduce usability?
 Does increased usability reduce security?
14

15. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 To understand whether security features of a
smartphone improves its usability or reduces it
 Null Hypothesis H0 : Security features of a smartphone
has no relation with its usability features.
 Alternate Hypothesis H1 : Security features of a
smartphone shares a relation with its usability features.
15

16. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
 Questionnaire to study the impact of factors governing
security and usability in smart phones running various
OS such as Android, iOS, Windows etc.
 Questions selected on the basis of their relevance to
two factors i.e. Security and Usability.
 Questionnaire included questions related to :
 Operating Systems on their smartphone
 User’s technical expertise
 Locking mechanism used
 Features enabled on phone such as
 antivirus, anti-theft feature etc.
16

17. PARTICIPANTS
 All the participants smartphone users
 e-mailed the survey form
 Respondents are from all categories of users.
 As young as school students to professionals
 From very little tech-savvy to app developers.
 School students as well as Doctoral degree holders.
17

18. QUESTIONNAIRE
Survey on Usability vs Security
 Your Name
……………………………….
 Age
 15-20 years
 21-25 years
 26-30 years
 31 and above
 Other: ……………………
 Your Qualification
 School Student
 College Student
 Post Graduate
 PhD and above
 Other: ………………………………..
 What is the OS used in your smartphone?
 Android
 IOS
 Windows
 Symbian
18

19. QUESTIONNAIRE
 What kind of security do you use for your smartphon
 Pattern Lock
 Number Code Lock
 No Locking mechanism
 Other: ………………………………….
 Do you have antivirus installed on your smartphone?
 Installed but not enabled
 Not installed but I would like one
 I dont need it
 Installed and enabled
 Are you aware of anti-theft features available on your
smartphone?
 Yes, but I haven’t enabled
 Yes and enabled
 My phone dose not have this feature
 I am not aware if there is any such feature 19

20. QUESTIONNAIRE
 Are you aware of email encryption features available on
your smartphone?
 Yes, but I haven’t enabled
 Yes and enabled
 My phone dose not have this feature
 I am not aware if there is any such feature
 Do you fear that losing your phone may lead to Identity
theft?
 Yes and I have taken enough precautions
 Yes but I don’t know how to deal with it
 No I don’t care
 I don’t know about Identity theft
 How would you describe yourself
 With little techno Knowledge
 Tech Savvy
 App Developer 20

21. QUESTIONNAIRE
 Would you prefer a phone which is easy to use or one which
has more security feature?
 One with more security
 One which is easy to use
 What is your opinion about security features adding hassle to
your smartphone experience?
 I subscribe to the view
 I don’t think so
 I am OK with it
 If you are to suggest one feature for your smartphone what
would it be?
…………………………………………………………..
21

22. QUESTIONNAIRE
 What rating would you give to the security features on your phone?
1 being least secure and 5 being most secure
1 2 3 4 5
Least a b c d e Most Secure
 What rating would you give to the usability (ease of use) of your phone?
1 being difficult to use and 5 being easy to use
1 2 3 4 5
Difficult to use
a b c d e Easy to use
22

23. MATERIALS AND APPARATUS
 Experiment started with the task of data collection for
the study.
 Questionnaire was prepared using Google forms
 Participants were sent this form on their e-mail.
 Participants not paid for the responses.
 Study confirmed to the requirements for ethical and safe
research as the responses voluntary
 Identity of the respondents was never revealed to other
respondents
 Responses were collected in the spreadsheet (.csv file).
 More than 120 responses used
 R used for statistical functions and plotting etc.
23

24. RESULTS
 Pearson’s correlation coefficient between security rating and
usability rating : +0.38.
 p-value much less than significance level of 1%,
 null hypothesis can be rejected and alternate hypothesis can be
accepted.
 A positive correlation between the usability conformance and
security conformance of the smartphones as per user’s
expectation.
 This is contrary to established belief that enhanced security
affects usability and vice-versa
 One possible explanation can be that the modern day
smartphones have been able to satisfy their users both in
terms of security as well as usability because of their
versatility.
24

25. SUMMARY
25

26. SUMMARY
26

27. SUMMARY
27

28. SUMMARY
28

29. SUMMARY
29

30. SUMMARY
30

31. SUMMARY
31

32. SUMMARY
32

33. SUMMARY
33

34. SUMMARY
34

35. SUMMARY
35

36. SUMMARY
36

37. SUMMARY
37

38. COMPARISON OF USABILITY RATINGS
(ALMOST SAME)
38

39. COMPARISON OF SECURITY RATINGS
(IOS BETTER)
39

40. FUTURE SCOPE AND SUGGESTIONS
 Mobile platforms becoming packed with features
 New mobile devices run different OS, have powerful
libraries, boast of UI features and provide multi-protocol
networking stack.
 The threat becomes more severe as mobile devices
store sensitive personal and financial data
 Need to improve the user interface that could warn the
user’s about all categories of unsecured information.
 A lot of users want to use various security features such
as e-mail encryption etc., however they are unable to
locate these functionalities on their phones.
40

41. FUTURE SCOPE AND SUGGESTIONS
 So, user interface provided needs improvement.
 There must be a common UI framework for all the
smartphones.
 Authentication problem provides a challenge to
balance high level of security with appropriate level
of usability.
 Present work can also be used to design
authentication process that is both secure and
simple.
 A future wok can be to understand the user’s
knowledge about the apps they are installing and
risks associated with them.
41

42. CONCLUSION
 Users are satisfied with both the security as well as usability
features of the modern smartphones.
 Though usability got more rating points than security, users
prefer a phone with more security features rather than a phone
that is easier to use.
 Both Android and iOS got almost same points for usability, but
for security iOS better than Android.
 Our results are not in conformity with the existing norm that
increasing security takes a toll at the usability.
 Results indicate a positive correlation among the security and
usability feature of smartphone.
 Present day smartphones are versatile enough to satisfy both the
security as well as usability requirements of the users.
 Many smartphone users hesitate to migrate to another platform
simply for the fear of portability issues.
 Need of the hour : A common user interface framework to be
adopted by all smartphone developers. 42

43. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 Sincere thanks to :
 All the respondents
 All the faculty members of :
Department of Computer Science
Shyam Lal College (Evening)
University of Delhi
43

44. THANK YOU !!!
44
Questions ???
Comments !!!

45. REFERENCES
 Just, M. (2010). Security and Usability.
 Braz, C., & Robert, J. M. (2006, April). Security and usability: the case of the user authentication
methods. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conferenceof the Association Francophone
d'Interaction Homme-Machine (pp. 199-203). ACM.
 Flechais, I., Mascolo, C., & Sasse, M. A. (2007). Integrating security and usability into the requirements
and design process. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics, 1(1), 12-26.
 Braz, C., Seffah, A., & M’Raihi, D. (2007). Designing a trade-off between usability and security: a
metrics based-model. In Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2007 (pp. 114-126). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
 Kainda, R., Flechais, I., & Roscoe, A. W. (2010, July). Two heads are better than one: security and
usability of device associations in group scenarios. InProceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable
Privacy and Security (p. 5). ACM.
 Cranor, L. F., & Garfinkel, S. (2004). Guest Editors' Introduction: Secure or Usable?.Security & Privacy,
IEEE, 2(5), 16-18.
 Kaiser, J., & Reichenbach, M. (2002). Evaluating security tools towards usable security. In Usability (pp.
247-256). Springer US.
 Johnson, M., & Stajano, F. (2009, January). Usability of security management: Defining the permissions
of guests. In Security Protocols (pp. 276-283). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
 Oberheide, J., & Jahanian, F. (2010, February). When mobile is harder than fixed (and vice versa):
demystifying security challenges in mobile environments. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Workshop on
Mobile Computing Systems & Applications (pp. 43-48). ACM.
 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jqNYs1k0XlFZ_Pm5c16iYT9w37VZI9sHELZXxNC93z4/viewform?c=0
&w=1&usp=mail_form_link
45