Some days I think that security, especially as it’s applied at big companies, is a race to see who can be the first to implement an environment that’s so uncompromisingly obstructive that its employees can no longer plausibly function at work.
Two of the latest casualties on an endless quest for absolute security are Google’s app passwords and second factor security that’s not based on the Fido U2F standard. Both measures are designed to gain some marginal security at the fringes. App passwords, although perfectly safe as long as they’re stored on a secure system with an encrypted disk, have a non-zero (and I mean non-zero, as in approximately zero, but not exactly zero) chance of leaking, and such a leak runs the risk of being undiscovered for an extended period of time. Likewise, existing second factor authentication methods work exactly as well as advertised, but U2F removes some edges that the truly paranoid lose sleep over, like how a TOTP-based factor is configured and entered by a fallible human.
But those marginal security gains often come at the high cost of suppressing productivity as valuable tooling becomes unusable. Restricting app passwords, for example, necessarily implies the immediate death of any open standard – IMAP and clients like Mutt and offlineimap are out. U2F is neat, but because it’s new enough to not be supported by most browsers 1. Firefox has a plugin available, but Google’s U2F implementation in particular relies on APIs that are coupled to Chrome, so using it outside of Google’s One True Browser is impossible.
The trade offs are not linear. Eliminating the possibility of a highly improbable edge case could cost hundreds of hours a month in employee productivity as their tools become duller and work slows as a result. Compromises need to be made somewhere – the only way to achieve perfect information security is to cut your network cables and bury your server at the bottom of a mineshaft, and companies in big enterprise aren’t falling over each other to do that. Security decisions should be evaluated based on their impact on usability, preferably with the input of the people being impacted, and security teams should be willing to throw out a proposal that’s too expensive.
It’s possible to build a room that’s perfectly impenetrable, but doing so will cut off your own oxygen supply. We rely only on our own rationality and ability to recognize and balance trade offs not to do so.