<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>A Comparative Study of Graphical and Alphanumeric Passwords for Mobile Device Authentication</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Mohd Anwar</string-name>
          <email>manwar@ncat.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Ashiq Imran</string-name>
          <email>aimran@aggies.ncat.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Department of Computer Science North Carolina A&amp;T State University</institution>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets are widely used to perform security critical and privacy sensitive activities, such as mobile banking, mobile health care, mobile shopping, etc. Screen locks are used in mobile devices to protect sensitive information. Graphical password and alphanumeric password are two common types of screen locking schemes. The alphanumeric password scheme has shown some security and usability drawbacks. For example, a user may pick an easy to remember alphanumeric password that may also be easy to guess. On the contrary, if as user picks a password that is hard to guess it may also be hard to remember. Several alternative password mechanisms have been introduced. Graphical password is one of them, and it is based on pictures or patterns. However, graphical password is also vulnerable to certain types of attack. In this paper, we study an alphanumeric password method (i.e., PIN) and a graphical password method (i.e., pattern) in order to unravel security and usability issues related to mobile device authentication. The study uses observation and survey data to compare these two authentication methods on following criteria: creation time, memorability, and login time and login success rate. In addition, we also measure how the screen size of a mobile device affects usability and security aspects of screen locks by measuring differences on creation time, memorability, login time, login success rate for Android smartphone and tablet.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Humans are often considered the weakest link for security
in information and communication technology.
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">Patrick,
Long, and Flinn (2003</xref>
        ) identify three security areas for
which human factor issues are very important:
authentication (passwords), security operations (intrusion detection)
and developing secure systems (developing the security).
If a user misplaces a mobile device in which a screen lock
is not activated, then whoever finds it may have access to
sensitive information. Therefore, an authentication
mechanism is necessary to protect sensitive information on
mobile devices. In order to build an efficient and feasible
mobile authentication there is a need to strike a balance
between usability and security.
      </p>
      <p>
        Generally user authentication is based on three factors:
what the user knows; what the user has; and what the user
is. The authentication methods in our study are based on
what the user knows (knowledge-factor). Based on
knowledge-factor, different types of authentication
methods have been proposed over the years. Alphanumeric
passwords are the most common but they have some
drawbacks. Previous studies have shown that users tend to
choose short alphanumeric passwords that are easy to
remember
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">(Adams and Sasse 1999)</xref>
        but that password can be
easily guessed. On the other hand, if an alphanumeric
password is hard to guess, then it is often hard to remember
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">(Suo, Zhu, and Owen 2005)</xref>
        . Since users can remember a
limited number of alphanumeric passwords, they often
write down their passwords or use same password for
multiple accounts
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">(Kotadia 2005)</xref>
        . Graphical password has
been introduced as an alternative to alphanumeric
password. The motivation behind graphical password is that
users can remember pictures better than text. Human
psychology supports such assumption
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">(Shepard 1967)</xref>
        .
Because of this memorability advantage, there is significant
interest in graphical password
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">(Everitt et al. 2009)</xref>
        .
      </p>
      <p>
        At present, digit lock or PIN is considered the most
popular password among mobile device authentication
methods. Approximately 88% mobile users set the PIN in their
devices
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">(Jakobsson et al. 2009)</xref>
        . This method is typically
required to select four-digit personal identification number
(PIN) that users memorize and enter using a virtual keypad
to unlock a locked phone. The PIN for screen lock
provides 10000 different combinations. This method belongs
to alphanumeric password scheme. In recent times, a
graphical password scheme named pattern lock is getting
popularity amongst the Android OS users (Aviv et al.
2010). The Android pattern lock requires traversing an
onscreen 3 × 3 grid of contact points. Android pattern lock
provides 389112 distinct patterns for 9-point combination.
      </p>
      <p>This paper explores user behavior regarding these two
password schemes and discusses security threats for
mobile devices. We have done a survey study to get some
knowledge on user preference and feedback on both
password schemes. We present a comparative study between
graphical (Pattern) and alphanumeric password scheme in
terms of usability and security. Lastly, we analyze data to
determine the performance of pattern and PIN with respect
to screen size.</p>
      <p>This paper will provide an overview of various kinds of
graphical password authentication systems and then do a
comparison between graphical password and alphanumeric
password. We study android pattern lock as a graphical
password scheme and PIN as an alphanumeric password
scheme for our experiment. The remainder of this paper is
structured as follows: Section 2 presents related works of
our approach. We describe our experiment in section 3. In
section 4, we present results. We discuss result in section
5. Section 6 describes the limitation and future work. This
paper is concluded in section 7.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. Related Works</title>
      <p>Mobile devices contain various type of sensitive personal
information such as text messages, emails, notes, apps, app
data, music, pictures, and so much more. Though it is
really a great convenience to have all of these information in
our mobile devices, it also allows security risk if all of the
information is easily accessible. One way to avoid and
prevent the security attacks is to set some sort of screen lock,
which provides authentication on our mobile devices.</p>
      <p>Several types of authentication methods are proposed
over the years. Alphanumeric password scheme is one of
the most common methods for mobile authentication.
However, it has some security and usability drawbacks
such as: a difficult password is hard to remember, and a
short password is easy to guess. Some researchers have
developed graphical passwords as an alternative way or an
extension to text password to address the drawbacks of
guessing attacks and making it easy to remember. But
graphical password may also be vulnerable for certain
attacks (Lashkari et al. 2009). A comprehensive research
study is needed to find out which mobile authentication
method serves the purposes better in terms of usability and
security.</p>
      <p>
        Graphical password schemes can be categorized into
three groups: recognition based, recall based, and cued
recall based
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">(Chiang and Chiasson 2013)</xref>
        . In a
recognitionbased scheme, a set of images is given and the user needs
to identify correct images that the user had already set in
order to authenticate (e.g., Use Your Illusion (UYI)). In
UYI scheme, the login screen displays 9 images randomly
positioned in a 3 × 3 grid
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">(Schaub et al. 2013)</xref>
        . The user
needs to recognize and select a right image amongst trap
images. Both of the papers provide creation time, login
time, and login success rate as the measurement criteria for
usability.
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">Chiang and Chiasson (2013)</xref>
        also described the
password length and password strength as security criteria.
      </p>
      <p>
        Recall schemes require recreating drawings without a
hint (e.g., Android Pattern Lock).
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">Chiasson et al. (2009)</xref>
        propose a recall based graphical password called the
passpoint in which, users must select the same click-points in
the same order to login. After comparing the pass-points
with the alphanumeric password, they find that participants
using pass-points have success rates approximately 99%,
whereas participants have approximately 88% success rates
for alphanumeric password.
      </p>
      <p>
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">Tao and Adams (2008)</xref>
        introduce a recall based
password scheme called the pass-go. A user can either draw
dots on intersection points or connect intersection points
with strokes. Points and lines have to be drawn in the
correct order for successful authentication. PassGo is a
gridbased scheme, which is an improvement of Draw A Secret
(DAS)
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">(Jermyn et al. 1999)</xref>
        .
      </p>
      <p>
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">Chiasson et al. (2008)</xref>
        introduce a cued recall based
password where a sequence of points needs to be selected
on a cue like an image. Another new technique, persuasive
cued click points (PCCP), is proposed by
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">Chiasson et al.
(2012)</xref>
        . They describe that graphical password is effective
in terms of memorability and provide benefits over
alphanumeric passwords because images can be used as cues for
different passwords. They also point out graphical
passwords are easy to learn but typically require longer login
time.
      </p>
      <p>An extensive research has been done in the quest for
replacing passwords for web authentication (Bonneau et al.
2012). This paper offers some benchmark for comparative
evaluation of authentication schemes. They enlist 11 types
of alternative password methods, such as biometrics
recognition, graphical password (PCCP), etc. that can be used to
replace alphanumeric password. They categorize usability
benefits of an ideal authentication scheme into 8
properties: memorywise-effortless, scalable-for-users,
easy-tolearn, efficient-to-use, infrequent-errors, etc. Furthermore,
an ideal authentication scheme should have following
security benefits: resilient to physical observation, resilient to
guessing, resilient to theft as the measurement to compare
each password scheme with alphanumeric password.</p>
      <p>
        Biddle,
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">Chiasson, and Oorschot (2012)</xref>
        describe each
category and compare 9 different graphical password
methods. They compare required login time and login
success rate in terms of usability. They also classified two
types of security attacks, i.e., guessing attacks and capture
attacks. They list shoulder surfing attacks as a category of
capture attacks.
      </p>
      <p>A comparative study is needed to determine advantages
and disadvantages between graphical and alphanumeric
password schemes on mobile devices. In our study, we
compare Android pattern lock (graphical) and PIN
(alphanumeric) to find out usability issues such as creation time,
memorability, and duration of login and success rate of
login. We explore whether screen size of the mobile
devices has any impact on each usability criterion. In addition,
we try to figure out which of usability and security matters
most to the users. We also studied user perception about
three methods of attack for pattern and PIN screen locks.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. Experiments</title>
      <p>Our experiment focuses on determining usability and
security issues of pattern and PIN screen locks. In our study,
usability is measured by password creation time,
memorability, login time, and login success rate. We also
determine whether the size of the mobile device has impact on
the measurements. For security issues, we collect user
perception data on three methods of attacks: guessing attacks,
smudge attacks, and shoulder surfing attacks. In our study,
we used Android OS smartphone (HTC Smartphone Model
ADR6330VW) and tablet (Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 -10.1
GT- P5113), which provide PIN and pattern screen locks.</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>3.1 Recruitment</title>
        <p>The study protocol, consent form, and recruitment flyer
were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of
the University. Our study involved human subjects
performing different screen lock tasks and participating in a
survey. The recruitment flyer was disseminated through
email and posted on social media sites. The flyer has two
parts. In the first part, the details of the project and tasks
are stated. In the second part, the eligibility of the
participants was described. An inclusion criterion was set that a
participant should have experience of using smartphones or
tablets. The consent form is a formal description of the
survey. The type of the task and duration of the survey
were mentioned. A participant must be 17 years old to
participate in the survey. We designed the online survey using
Qualtrics toolkit. We launched and distributed the link to
survey site in different social media website such as
Facebook. Online survey provides us the opportunity to gather
participants in a short time. We recruited 33 participants in
the online survey. Among the participants, 25 of them are
male and 8 of them are female. Majority of participants
(61%) belongs to 22-26 age group and most of them are
graduate students.
3.2 Task
The purpose of user tasks is to find out the creation time
and login time of pattern lock and PIN for Android
smartphone and tablet. In addition, we want to know
whether device size has any effect on these two criteria.
The subjects performed these tasks in the campus of North
Carolina A&amp;T State University. The recruited subjects
were volunteers from our university. We provided each
subject with a smartphone and a tablet. We measured the
creation and login time using a stopwatch. For measuring
creation time of pattern password, we asked them to create
the pattern lock in the smartphone and tablet. We asked
whether the subject created the same pattern password in
both the devices or not. We asked them to login in the
same order that they created the pattern. In the same
manner, we measured the creation time of and login time with
PIN for both devices. We ask whether they create same
PIN in both devices or not. We ran these experiments with
33 participants. In addition, we calculated the average
length of both the screen locks and user behavior of
creating same screen lock for both the smartphone and the
tablet.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>3.3 Survey</title>
        <p>We deployed an online survey using Qualtrics toolkit.
After designing and adding survey questions, we launched the
survey and distributed the survey link in different social
media websites such as Facebook. The online survey gave
us the opportunity to gather more participants in a short
time. It also provides more flexibility to collect and
analyze data. Total number of questions in our survey is 29.
The survey was anonymous. The participants’ information
is kept confidential. The survey had some demographic
questions. For example, in which age group do you
belong? Some questions were on users’ security behavior.
For example, how often do you change your password on a
mobile device? The survey includes multiple 5-point likert
scale items. For example, small screen devices
(Smartphones) are more suitable for screen lock than big
screen devices (Tablets). Some ranking type questions
were in the survey. For example, rank different methods of
attack (Guessing attacks, Smudge attacks, Shoulder surfing
attacks etc.) for mobile devices? The survey also asks
whether the subject will prefer a difficult screen lock to an
easy screen lock.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4. Results</title>
      <p>We analyzed data collected from user tasks and survey
responses to identify usability issues and user preferences
when using graphical passwords on mobile devices. We
determined how screen size affects login performance by
comparing differences between Android smartphone and
tablet on creation time, login time, and login success rate
for each scheme. For the creation time and login time, we
used t-tests to determine whether there are significant
differences for different devices. All the t-tests are performed
at 95% confidence interval (i.e., the α-value is set at 0.05).</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Creation Time</title>
        <p>The password creation time is measured as the time
between first touch on mobile devices to touch the submit
button. An unpaired t-test showed some significant
difference between pattern password and PIN when we used
tablet (p = 0.04). We compared pattern creation time and PIN
creation time for both tablet and phone. We get significant
result for only pattern creation time (p = 0.0007). We
calculated unpaired t-test of PIN creation time for both tablet
and phone. The result is not significant. Figure 1 shows the
box-and-whisker plot for the creation time of both PIN and
pattern on mobile devices. The pattern on the tablet takes
the highest time among other comparison.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>Login Time</title>
        <p>The login time is measured as the time for successful login
into the mobile device. We run our task to compare both
pattern and PIN in mobile device of different size. We run
unpaired t-test for four cases. We calculate t-test of login
time of pattern and PIN for separately and together with
tablet and phone. When measuring login time, we treated
user reset as fail attempts. We get no significant result for
login time between pattern and PIN schemes. Figure 2
shows the box-and-whisker plots for login time of both
PIN and pattern on different size mobile devices (phone
and tablet). The pattern takes slightly less time to log in on
phone, and PIN takes slightly less time on tablet.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-3">
        <title>Login Success Rate</title>
        <p>Table 1 shows the login success rate of both PIN and
screen lock. From 31 participants 29 participants can enter
successfully correct PIN 18 times out of 20. On the
contrary, 23 participants think that they can enter 18 times out of
20 successful patterns.
Pattern
83%</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-4">
        <title>Memorability</title>
        <p>Most of the participants provide memorize screen lock for
login into mobile devices. From our survey, approximately
81% participants memorize their screen lock. Some
participants (12%) write down their screen lock in a piece of
paper. According to the participants, about 39% of them
never forget their PIN whereas 56% of the participants never
forget their pattern. In our study, 80% participants create
same PIN and pattern passwords for both mobile devices.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-5">
        <title>Screen Size Impact</title>
        <p>In the survey, we asked the participants a 5-point likert
scale question about screen size impacts on both PIN and
pattern screen locks. Figure 3 shows the result of that
question. For PIN, participants do not agree with: the screen
size can have an effect on usability. Most of the
participants agree that PIN is easier to use on phone than tablet
(SD =1.3). On the contrary, most of the participants (SD =
1.02) support that pattern is easier to use on tablet than on
phone.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-6">
        <title>Observation of attacks</title>
        <p>We observe users and noted relevant behaviors and
feedback. Most of the users create same PIN and same pattern
for both tablet and phone. About 20% of them create
different PIN and pattern password for different mobile
devices. The majority of the participants (75%) choose to
create difficult pattern points (e.g., 1-&gt;4-&gt;5-&gt;8-&gt;9) instead
of easy pattern points (e.g., 1-&gt;2-&gt;3-&gt;6). For PIN, 87% of
participants choose a difficult PIN (e.g., 1928). According
to participants shoulder surfing attacks has 43% chance to
be a threat for PIN. On the other hand, smudge attacks has
50% chance for pattern.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5. Discussions</title>
      <p>We measured creation time and login time for PIN and
pattern password in two different sizes of mobile devices to
find out whether the size of the device has any effect. Our
observations are drawn from user tasks and survey results.
Observation 1: The creation time of both PIN and
patternbased screen locks in mobile phone is less than that in
tablet.</p>
      <p>Observation 2: The creation time of pattern password is
quicker than the creation time of PIN in Android mobile
phone.</p>
      <p>Observation 3: People who used same pattern/PIN for
different devices take slightly less time to log in than people
who use different pattern/PIN.</p>
      <p>Observation 4: Login time is dependent on the length of
pattern password. Longer (7-8) pattern takes more time
than shorter pattern. Since PIN has fixed length of 4 digits,
the login time is consistent.</p>
      <p>Among the study participants, 87% want to have a difficult
PIN, and 75% want to have strong pattern password.
Therefore, the majority of the participants preferred
security to usability.</p>
      <p>
        One indicator of the security strength of a password
scheme is the total number of possible passwords, also
known as possible password space. A brute-force attack
against a specific password would involve exhaustively
searching the password space. The possible password
space for PIN is 10000 (a PIN is 4-digit long, which results
in total 104 possible PINs), whereas a 9-point pattern has
389112 distinct patterns
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">(Kaseorg 2013)</xref>
        .
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>6. Limitations and Future Work</title>
      <p>Our paper studied alphanumeric and graphical password
schemes by comparing two screen lock methods in
Android devices: PIN and pattern password. Screen lock
protects Android phones and tablets from unauthorized access.
Our study explored usability and security issues with two
screen lock methods: PIN (alphanumeric password) and
pattern (graphical password).</p>
      <p>The purpose of the study on screen lock of mobile
devices was to look into the usability and security issues
through observing user behavior. Since user behavior has
security implications on mobile devices, we examined user
behavior for two different attacks on mobile devices:
smudge attacks and shoulder surfing. Smudge attacks can
be a threat for capacitive touch based smart phones and
tablets. Our study focuses on comparison between two
popular screen locks. Our study is limited to 33
participants and three usability criteria. We also limit our study to
two attacks. In the future, we want to conduct a large-scale
study with more usability criteria and attack schemes.
Future studies will also be informed by lessons we have
learned from the screen locking study.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>7. Conclusions</title>
      <p>In this paper, we compared the usability and security of
pattern and PIN passwords for Android devices. We
conducted a user survey on usability and security issues of
pattern and PIN. We gathered data about creation time, login
time, and login success rate of each of the methods in both
tablet and phone. Our survey results show that 75% of
participants prefer strong pattern screen locks, while 87%
prefer strong PIN. We also collected user perception about
secure screen locks and related attacks such as guessing
attacks, smudge attacks and shoulder surfing attacks for each
password scheme.</p>
      <p>The pattern password for mobile devices is vulnerable to
security attacks such as smudge attacks and shoulder
surfing attacks. Further research is needed to address security
issues with Android pattern locks. The users also need to
create strong pattern passwords or PINs as well as make
efforts to protect them.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Patrick</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Long</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Flinn</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2003</year>
          .
          <article-title>HCI and security systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the CHI</source>
          <year>2004</year>
          ,
          <volume>1056</volume>
          -
          <fpage>1057</fpage>
          , New York, NY: ACM Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Adams</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sasse</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>1999</year>
          .
          <article-title>Users are not the enemy</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>Communications of the ACM</source>
          <volume>42</volume>
          (
          <issue>12</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>40</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>46</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Suo</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zhu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Owen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2005</year>
          .
          <article-title>Graphical passwords: A survey</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC)</source>
          ,
          <fpage>463</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>472</lpage>
          , Tucson,
          <string-name>
            <surname>AZ</surname>
          </string-name>
          : IEEE Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kotadia</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2005</year>
          .
          <article-title>Microsoft: Write down your passwords</article-title>
          .
          <source>ZDNet Australia</source>
          , May,
          <volume>23</volume>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Everitt</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bragin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fogarty</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kohno</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2009</year>
          .
          <article-title>A comprehensive study of frequency, interference, and training of multiple graphical passwords</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing System (CHI)</source>
          ,
          <fpage>889</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>898</lpage>
          , Boston, MA: ACM Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shepard</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>1967</year>
          .
          <article-title>Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of verbal Learning and verbal Behavior</source>
          <volume>6</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>156</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>163</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jakobsson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Golle</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chow</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2009</year>
          .
          <article-title>Implicit authentication for mobile devices</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 4th USENIX conference on Hot topics in security, 9-9</source>
          , Montreal, Canada: USENIX Association.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          2010.
          <article-title>Smudge attacks on smartphone touch screens</article-title>
          .
          <source>In WOOT</source>
          ,
          <volume>10</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>7</lpage>
          , Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zakaria</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Griffiths</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Brostoff</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2011</year>
          .
          <article-title>Shoulder surfing for recall-based graphical passwords</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS)</source>
          ,
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>12</lpage>
          , Pittsburgh, PA: ACM Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          2009.
          <article-title>Shoulder surfing attack in graphical password authentication</article-title>
          .
          <source>International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security</source>
          <volume>6</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>145</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>154</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chiang</surname>
          </string-name>
          , H.-Y., and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chiasson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2013</year>
          .
          <article-title>Improving user authentication on mobile devices: A touchscreen graphical password</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Humancomputer interaction with mobile devices and services</source>
          ,
          <volume>251</volume>
          -
          <fpage>260</fpage>
          , Munich, Germany: ACM press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schaub</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Walch</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Könings</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Weber</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2013</year>
          .
          <article-title>Exploring the design space of graphical passwords on smartphones</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          <source>In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS)</source>
          ,
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>14</lpage>
          , Newcastle, UK: ACM Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chiasson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Forget</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stobert</surname>
            , E., van Oorschot,
            <given-names>P.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Biddle</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2009</year>
          .
          <article-title>Multiple password interference in text passwords and click-based graphical passwords</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 16th ACM conference on Computer and communications security</source>
          ,
          <fpage>500</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>511</lpage>
          , Chicago, IL: ACM Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tao</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Adams</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2008</year>
          .
          <article-title>Pass-go: A proposal to improve the usability of graphical passwords</article-title>
          .
          <source>IJ Network Security</source>
          <volume>7</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>273</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>292</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jermyn</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mayer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Monrose</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Reiter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rubin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>1999</year>
          .
          <article-title>The design and analysis of graphical passwords</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Security Symposium. 1-14</source>
          , Washington D.C.: Usenix Security.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chiasson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Forget</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Biddle</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and van Oorschot,
          <string-name>
            <surname>P.C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          <article-title>Influencing users towards better passwords: Persuasive cued click-points</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture</source>
          , Creativity, Interaction Volume
          <volume>1</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>121</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>130</lpage>
          , Liverpool, UK: ACM Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chiasson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stobert</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Forget</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Biddle</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and Van Oorschot,
          <string-name>
            <surname>P.C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>2012</year>
          .
          <article-title>Persuasive cued click-points: Design, implementation, and evaluation of a knowledge-based authentication mechanism</article-title>
          .
          <source>Dependable and Secure Computing, IEEE Transactions on 9(2)</source>
          :
          <fpage>222</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>235</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          <year>2012</year>
          .
          <article-title>The quest to replace passwords: A framework for comparative evaluation of web authentication schemes</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceeding of Security and Privacy (SP) IEEE Symposium on</source>
          ,
          <fpage>553</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>567</lpage>
          , San Francisco, CA: IEEE Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Biddle</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chiasson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and Van Oorschot,
          <string-name>
            <surname>P.C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>2012</year>
          .
          <article-title>Graphical passwords: Learning from the first twelve years</article-title>
          .
          <source>In ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 44</source>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>41</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref23">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kaseorg</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2013</year>
          .
          <article-title>How many combinations does Android 9 point unlock have?</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Quora. Retrieved February 25</source>
          ,
          <year>2015</year>
          , from http://www.quora.com/
          <article-title>How-many-combinations-does-Android9-point-unlock-have.</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref24">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Qualtrics: Online Survey</surname>
            <given-names>Software &amp; Insight</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Platform</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref25">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Qualtrics</surname>
          </string-name>
          [software].
          <source>Retrieved February 25</source>
          ,
          <year>2015</year>
          , from http://www.qualtrics.com.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref26">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Passfaces</given-names>
            <surname>Corp</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2009</year>
          .
          <article-title>The Science behind passfaces</article-title>
          . White Paper http://www.passfaces.com/published/The%20Science%
          <fpage>20Behind</fpage>
          %
          <fpage>20Passfaces</fpage>
          .pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>