Facebook "Trusted Contacts" Lets You Pester Friends To Recover Account Access 114
alphadogg writes "Facebook Thursday said it's making available globally a feature called 'Trusted Contacts' that lets users select three to five friends who can help users recover account access such as if they forget their password. Facebook said the idea is that once these friends are identified as 'trusted contacts' through the user's security settings, Facebook will provide each of them with a special code. 'Enter the codes from [at least 3 of] your trusted contacts, and you'll be able to access your account,' Facebook says. 'After you set your trusted contacts, we'll notify them so that they can be ready to help you if you ever need it.'"
Security (Score:5, Interesting)
That sounds like a really good idea; adding a human element to password recovery using already established trust relationships. Of course, slashdot wouldn't be slashdot if we didn't try and skew reader response by painting it as "pestering".
Re:Security (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, I find this an excellent password recovery scheme. It does not protect against a bad choice in friends, but there are no technical protections possible against that. But for password recovery it is very good and quite safe against abuse by anonymous internet hackers.
Re:Security (Score:4, Interesting)
It does not protect against a bad choice in friends
I would imagine that Facebook account access is the least of your problems if you have a bad choice of friends.
Re:SSteps...ecurity (Score:2)
1. Hack account
2. Add your own friends
3. Set as trusted friends...
4. Success?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it prevents the original owner from regaining control.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming they do in some fashion regain control of their account (and setting trusted friends doesn't prevent them from using some other password reset channel), they can simply un-trust your faux friends. Account security is restored. Granted there's a race condition if you can re-reset the password faster than they can un-trust you, but that seems like an *awful* lot of work to keep a Facebook account.
Re: (Score:2)
It is about the account owner forgetting his/her password.
Re: (Score:2)
4. Get busted because now they know who you really are,
(it's trivial for Graph to figure this out based on the friends you choose)
5. Jailtime?
Unless your selected "friends" are just sock puppet accounts.
Wonder where that idea came from...
Re: (Score:2)
It does not protect against a bad choice in friends, but there are no technical protections possible against that
Sure there is. Ditch the "electronic friend" concept. It's as fake as "pages" on a web page. Real life doesn't translate into the bitworld, and trying to shoehorn the concepts in is just causing problems.
Trust is to be earned, not given away for a smiley.
Re: (Score:2)
Now tell me why I would want Facebook to know who my close friends are.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's just add in another handful of vectors for phishing attacks. With people with less familiarity to your personal information and less incentive to exercise diligence.
I see NO possible FLAW with that plan!&
</boggle-eyed Homer simpson over the top sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
Again, that comes down to your choice of friends - something there's really no technical solution for.
This trusted contact scheme would work well for me, because I'll just mark as trusted the people who either a) already have keys to my house, or b) know the location my spare key is hidden.* Every one of them are type that, when t
Re:Security (Score:4, Informative)
Not only a good idea, but it's a really elegant solution for social networks. Nice work, Facebook!
Either you're trolling, or you really have a weird definition of "elegant". This is highly exploitable through social engineering, and also is a very inelegant solution for those who currently don't have three trusted online "friends", or those who no longer trust one, and have to give them the digital equivalent of a face slap by removing the assigned trust.
I think this is slightly more elegant:
Write your password on a piece of cardboard. Fold it, and put it in an envelope. Mail it to a relative, saying it's your password for [service], and not to be opened unless you ask or you're dead.
You don't need to hunt down three friends. You don't have to give facebook information about who you trust. And you're covered even if you die.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only a good idea, but it's a really elegant solution for social networks. Nice work, Facebook!
Either you're trolling, or you really have a weird definition of "elegant". This is highly exploitable through social engineering, and also is a very inelegant solution for those who currently don't have three trusted online "friends", or those who no longer trust one, and have to give them the digital equivalent of a face slap by removing the assigned trust.
I think this is slightly more elegant:
Write your password on a piece of cardboard. Fold it, and put it in an envelope. Mail it to a relative, saying it's your password for [service], and not to be opened unless you ask or you're dead.
You don't need to hunt down three friends. You don't have to give facebook information about who you trust. And you're covered even if you die.
If you're worried about what happens in the event of your death, shouldn't you give that envelope to your lawyer instead, to hold as part of your will? Wouldn't that make it covered by attorney-client privilege and accessible only to you or those to whom you've given power of attorney (or the person you indicated in your will, after your death?) Sure, it's not quite as easy to access (you'd hopefully have to satisfy a high bar in terms of proving who you are to get access to it) and may not be worth it for
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be more interesting to send parts of the password to different people. So for example 3 people out of a group of 7 would have to join their parts to get the whole password. Redundancies are there in case some of the people fall off the face of the planet. Ideally you'd find 7 people where no three of them would join up to conspire against you -- that is admittedly very hard.
I'm sure there's a mathematical function to split up a piece of information so that 3 out of 7 pieces is enough to restore it. How
Re: (Score:2)
There is a crypto system for that. Schneier explained it in Applied Crypto.
Basically the trick is that of 7 keyholders you need at least 5 (or some other number) that will all enter their key to sign or authenticate data. This can be extended to the signature applied to null (or any other chosen value) being used as the key for an encrypted volume.
It is the system we use at my work to sign software. There are M keyholders with a minimum number of N required to sign the software.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're worried about what happens in the event of your death, shouldn't you give that envelope to your lawyer instead, to hold as part of your will?
Hell, no. I have just gone through the death of a family member. With no disputes, the lawyer ended up with more money from the estate than most of the bereaved did.
I want a will that says "Any person who engages a lawyer inherits exactly nothing".
As the saying goes, first we start by...
Re: (Score:2)
> I think this is slightly more elegant:
> Write your password on a piece of cardboard. Fold it, and put it in an envelope. Mail
> it to a relative, saying it's your password for [service], and not to be opened unless
> you ask or you're dead. You don't need to hunt down three friends. You don't have
> to give facebook information about who you trust. And you're covered even if you die.
Wrong, wrong wrong.
1) Your relative may die, or lose contact with you
2) or the relationship may sour. And he's g
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, wrong wrong.
1) Your relative may die, or lose contact with you
2) or the relationship may sour. And he's got your password(s). Dumb.
1: You would know that, and can change the safeholder.
2: You would know that, and can change the password.
3: Yes, you are.
Re:Security (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also excellent at providing Facebook data which of your friends are close friends. Very useful to charge advertisers more for fake likes from trusted friends who are more likely to have a bigger impact.
Re:Security (Score:4, Insightful)
There's already 5000 ways for them to discover what friends are more relevant to you, though.
They can analyze your interactions, your views of someones profiles/walls, your clicks on their shares, your groupings or other customized settings...
I don't think this is the sort of feature that will have so much adoption as to matter in that sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm downplaying the effectiveness. I'm not saying FB is not out to get every last bit of info out there. If you're very privacy conscious, there's quite a number of things you should be looking out before this one.
Btw, Thanks for the free insult, it's always good to see ACs being tough guys.
Re: (Score:3)
> I'm downplaying the effectiveness. I'm not saying FB is not out to get
> every last bit of info out there. If you're very privacy conscious, there's
> quite a number of things you should be looking out before this one.
If you're very privacy conscious... then you're not on Facebook in the first place.
Re:Security (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you trust someone to be _trustworthy_ doesn't mean that you trust their _opinions_. For example, I would trust some members of my family to not abuse having a house key, for example; wouldn't stop them from talking nonsense I don't agree with, though :-)
Re:Security (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is still a step above the current state of affairs. It relies on somebody being able to gain access to your email address; currently, if that happens, you're screwed anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
He said impersonate, not actually access. I'd imagine a decent email service would catch email spoofing though, and tricking 3 people without them getting in contact with the account holder doesn't seem likely either.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess, as long as your friends just send the reply email without noticing that it's addressed to someone else entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that with the rate at which many people change email addresses you probablly don't even actually need access to the victims real email address, just an address that looks sufficiently plausible that the contacts think it's the victim.
If you are going to use this feature and want your account to remain secure you need to carefully instruct the friends on when they should and should not give out the code (preferablly in person only) and make sure that you can trust them to follow those instructions
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think 'pestering' people worries Facebook in the slightest.
OTOH this is several orders of magnitude better than "What's your favorite color?". I almost like it.
Re: (Score:2)
"OTOH this is several orders of magnitude better than "What's your favorite color?". I almost like it."
Nobody uses that anymore. It has been replaced by:
"What is the air speed velocity of an African Swallow?"
Ages ago.
Re: (Score:2)
But doesn't this approach just create another vector for social-engineering attacks? If any of my emails accounts are compromised, my phone is stolen, some malware gets a hold of my address book, etc., what stops a hacker from sending an email to everyone on my contact list asking for my secret Facebook codes? The chances are pretty high that the three extra-special friends on Facebook are also in your email/<insert social app> address lists.
TFA says “Choose people you can reach without using Fa
Re: (Score:2)
but improving Facebook's profit margin is certainly why it's here.
Well, yeah. But that's not a bad thing. This is capitalism working exactly as it's supposed to: company desires to increase profit, company creates a feature that benefits those using their services, company increases profit. It's wins all round, and is a refreshing change from the usual perverted capitalism we see these days, that revolves around captive audiences and legislative lock-ins.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to be like leaving your spare keys with a friend you trust that lives nearby. Makes sense.
Collusion? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'd hope that people would trust their friends to not abuse a privileged position in order to gain access to one's account, it's probably a good idea to pick friends from different, non-overlapping social circles to make it difficult for them to know who other "trusted" people for one's account are.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-overlapping social circles give Facebook more information than overlapping social circles.
If enough people use this feature, overlapping gives them circles of friends, non-overlapping gives them a network of interconnected circles of friends.
Imagine a group of six friends, each chosing only eachother as "trusted contacts"; facebook will know only the small circle.
Imagine a number of six-friend groups, each chosing a one of each group as a "trusted contact"; facebook will still be able to reconstruct a n
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but what information does that give Facebook? They already know people's social connections due to people "friending" each other.
My point was more "Leaving aside the privacy issues related to the use of Facebook and its specific implementation, in general people should choose diverse 'trusted contacts' from separate social groups so the odds of multiple friends colluding to get enough codes to gain access to one's account is minimized."
Re: (Score:1)
Is this new? (Score:5, Funny)
Facebook [..] Lets You Pester Friends.
Wasn't that already its primary use?
Teen Drama in 5 4 3 2 1 (Score:2)
I'm sure there will be plenty of young people pranking each other by hijacking their friends' accounts (or former friends) with this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For that to happen, the "friends" must have (A) physical access to the device and (B) a logged-in account.
With this "Trusted contacts", the friends need neither to hijack an account, they just needed to be sufficiently trusted in the past.
I'm much more worried about previously trusted ex-girlfriends getting together... (or rather; I would be).
Re: (Score:2)
1) Get your friends together for a party (especially a bachelor or bachelorette party.)
2) You and your friends get drunk.
3) Your (drunk) friends decide it would be "fun" to access into your Facebook account and post naughty message as you.
4) ???
5) Prof... *ring ring* Hi, Grandma. What? There's a picture of my naughty bits on my Facebook page? No there isn't! *check* What the?!
This is a social gimmick (Score:5, Interesting)
It creates yet another layer of "friendship exclusivity" in the Facebook social world. You have "friends" already, but now you can have "OMG BFF!" people as well, and some will feel accepted or rejected based on whether they are one of your "chosen few."
This is, of course, the intent - to create more hype and drama, and even more important, yet another vehicle for narcissism to flourish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mmm... I saw it more in terms of some sort of extra authentication and it doesn't seem to be obligatory so I don't know why people are complaining that much.
Re: (Score:2)
Best part is you have to wait until you receive the codes (how?) from these friends in order to access your account. What if one friend is off line because they've gone backpacking in the wilds of NoInternetLand for a month? What if they take their time responding (you're BFFs but you had a disagreement)? What if you don't receive the response?
You're stuffed using this method as there are too many points of failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It creates yet another layer of "friendship exclusivity" in the Facebook social world. You have "friends" already, but now you can have "OMG BFF!"
Actually, you could do that already, far more effectively, using Facebook groups. My friends can see what I post, but by OMG BFFs (although, I called them "acquaintances" and "friends" respectively) can see my real world contact details, and other info.
But... (Score:5, Funny)
But I do not have 3 friends you insensitive clods!
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need three friends.
You just need three Facebook Friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Best. Response. Ever.
Nuclear Launch Codes (Score:3)
Isn't this security measure a bit overkill for a stupid social network site??
What's next? All 3 to 5 friends will have to enter their codes simultaneously to recover the lost account?
Re: (Score:2)
What's next? All 3 to 5 friends will have to enter their codes simultaneously to recover the lost account?
No. Three out of five friends need to enter codes. I thought most people posting on Slashdot would know about codes where n out of m keys are needed to uncover a secret. (For example, for 3 out of 5 the keys would be points on something similar to a 2nd degree polynomial; with two points you have no idea what the polynomial is, with three or more points you can reconstruct it).
Re: (Score:2)
If it's good enough for the root zone of DNS [popsci.com], it's good enough for my friends list.
Re: (Score:2)
What's next? All 3 to 5 friends will have to enter their codes simultaneously to recover the lost account?
No. Three out of five friends need to enter codes. I thought most people posting on Slashdot would know about codes where n out of m keys are needed to uncover a secret.
And if you don't, there's a Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] listing a number of different systems.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not overkill at all. It's a relatively simple decentralized scheme for doing password resets. It sits between the reset processes that that only require the user and the ones that require someone at FB to do something. It should take a significant load off of the people at FB, probably be quicker for the user, and might even provide a gentle shaming of people who lose their password too often. It seems like a pretty smart plan.
Almost had the best Slashdot title ever (Score:1)
s/Friends/Chums/
You were so close.
It's not about YOU stupid. (Score:1)
Having " friends" instead of having a system saves FB money. Just another scheme .. ok now
It's all about profit. Now that the ice is broken ,i ask : when will FB users catch on and ask for their share of the money their data makes ?
Yes YOUR data makes THEM money , you get nothing in return . The Service ? LOL it's the tool they use to get your data that earns them money , it's not a service for you it's their tool to rake in the dough . They make billions with YOUR data . Wake up and send a letter t
Re: (Score:2)
you get nothing in return
FB users get a significant amount of utility out of Facebook, and of course it comes at a cost. It looks extremely lop-sided because there's only one facebook and there are a billion or so users, but saying that users get nothing from it is just as stupid as saying that it costs users nothing.
Brain Fart (Score:3)
This is supposed to be a security... enhancement?! How many people do you know on Facebook who would "recover" your password, change your profile picture to the photo they took of you in drag being touched up by a biker, change your status to Dead and start inviting people to your funeral? Because that's the vast majority of my friends - I'd trust them with my life but wouldn't dream of trusting them with £5. Or my beer. Or access to my Facebook accou - ohhhhhhh wait!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I know lots of those people, but they are not my trusted friends. If you have no true trusted friends, don't set any on facebook. It's not mandatory.
Re: (Score:1)
How many compomised computers are there in the world? How many successful Facebook phishing campaigns have there been? The trackrecord of my friends asking for computer support because they didn't know what they were doing is alarming. I think that my personal security policy will remain unchanged because of this option: only trust ME!
Hijacking opportunities for malicious "friends". (Score:1)
Not worse than other password recovery schemes. (Score:2)
Fo
Re: (Score:1)
It's worth nothing that the ANI that your bank gets when you call their 800 number, is different than the "caller ID" service you might have on your home phone. Caller ID is much easier to spoof.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about ads (again) (Score:2)
The three to five people you choose as 'Trusted Contacts' are likely to be the 'closest' to you and thus the most likely to share behaviour and preferences with you.
Once you identify those people, Facebook can use their patterns to (presumably) target ads at _you_ better, and charge a premium to advertisers for this 'more accurate' imprint.
Whether this works remains to be seen, but in any case this has nothing to do with convenience and much more to do with monetization.
Deleting account after death (Score:4, Insightful)
Sound like a good idea in theory, and it would also allow close friends to close an account of a departed one.
I know previously this can be distressing to contact facebook admins, and convince them that this is a valid request.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have some sort of semi-automatic system for that? Hell, one person I knew, they practically had her profile down before I found out she was dead mere days later.
Useful in the event of death/accidents (Score:2)
I've heard a lot of complaints about people passing away, and their facebook account becoming inaccessible to friends or family. This would be useful in the event of a long-term disabling event or death, allowing a spouse or close friend to pass on information in the event of a tragedy (or just begin the process of closing out the account).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're hosting a party with >20 people, it's simply easier to make a Facebook event, invite people, and see who says they're attending/maybe/not attending than actually calling/texting one and one person in order to invite them and check if they can make it.
As someone who is not on facebook, I find that it must be highly annoying for people like you to invite me to places... you do your whole facebook thing, and then still have to manually get in touch with the people like me who don't have facebook (
Re:Does anybody care? (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably nobody does in that cave you're hiding in, but out here in the world? Yeah, there's a couple people still using it, give or take millions.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about him, but I'm very happy in my Cave.
Re:Does anybody care? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. There is a real world outside of your room. People socialize. It might be hard to recognize it from the center of the universe you are in but it happens.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. There is a real world outside of your room. People socialize.
Yes, there is a real world out there. As opposed to Facebook, which you mostly access from your room.
Yes, people socialize. Have meals together, go dance, study together, play and sing, and much more. But it happens in "the real world outside of your room".
Sure, you can use Facebook to facilitate much of that, but you can do that with a phone or a car or e-mail too. Yet that doesn't make people think that the phone or car or mail server is the venue.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. There is a real world outside of your room. People socialize.
Yes, there is a real world out there. As opposed to Facebook, which you mostly access from your room.
Yes, people socialize. Have meals together, go dance, study together, play and sing, and much more. But it happens in "the real world outside of your room".
Sure, you can use Facebook to facilitate much of that, but you can do that with a phone or a car or e-mail too. Yet that doesn't make people think that the phone or car or mail server is the venue.
You mostly access Facebook from your room? ("In Korea, only old people use email...") I access Facebook from my car, from the office, from the park, from a bar, waiting in line at the DMV, via text, etc...
It's a forum for electronic communication. Sure it's possible to primarily use it purely for random connections, but well over 90% of my Facebook friends I know (or have at least met) in person.
If you're asking "Why Facebook them when I could just text them*?", you're doing social media wrong.
*(outside of
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious if you wrote that with a big grin on your face or if you genuinely believe that Facebook is having issues with maintaining its dominance.