ArticlePloS one2024
Toward secure mobile applications through proper authentication mechanisms.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the increased number of mobile apps, authentication processes play a key role in verifying users' identities and protecting data from security threats. Utilizing proper authentication techniques is key to protecting computer apps from being hacked. In this paper, we aimed to compare the authentication methods of the sign-up, sign-in, and password recovery processes of 50 e-commerce apps. To ensure accurate data analysis, we checked every app in a separate session and used the "think-aloud" technique while recording the screen. The researchers prepared a list of items that were checked during each session to identify the similarities and differences between tested apps regarding the authentication process. The results of this security analysis unequivocally demonstrated how different apps' designs for authentication processes are. Users' memory and comprehension are burdened by these variances, and no app can ensure that they adhere to recommended standards. The results of this study confirmed the necessity for unified and user-friendly authentication processes. This can be possible by following a usable security framework for the authentication process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.