Home > Identity Theft > Why You Aren’t the Only One Who Knows the Answers to Your Security Questions

Comments 0 Comments

If you’re protecting important personal accounts with nothing more than a few security questions, it may be time for an upgrade.

A study from Google recently compared the use of security questions to other account recovery methods like SMS (short text messages) and an alternative email address. It found that true or made-up responses to questions like, “What was your mother’s maiden name?” or specific answers to prompts such as “Favorite Superhero,” “First Car” or “Childhood Phone Number,” weren’t a reliable way to recover or protect an account.

The basic takeaway is simple: Account recovery (or account takeover) is easier to accomplish when using “security questions” because too often answers to those questions can be guessed and/or figured out through a process of elimination. The other methods, like SMS or email recovery, require a would-be scammer to have a user’s phone or know how to access the alternate email account used to receive the recovery link. While the study was Google-centric, the same goes for any site you visit that allows users to answer security questions in order to regain access to an account when they forgot their user name or password.

I’ve advocated a form of strategic lying as a way to foil would-be account take-over, which I explain in my book Swiped: How to Protect Yourself in a World Full of Scammers, Phishers, and Identity Thieves. While I still think it’s a good strategy,, the problem with this tactic, as highlighted by the Google study, is the quality of lies told. The most important issue is memorability.

The Google study suggests that most people aren’t very good at lying, at least when conjuring up answers to security questions. The authors saw, “a very sharp decline within 1 month of enrollment for [memorability of] all questions. This is particularly true for ‘favorite food’ and ‘childhood best friend,’ questions which are not necessarily factual and to which users may change their minds or have to choose from among several possibilities at the time of enrollment.”

While I still think strategic lying works, it’s no longer the best strategy. It only works if you can avoid the pitfalls uncovered in the Google study, and that might be a pretty big “if.”

What Were Those Pitfalls?

The study found that 16% of security questions had answers “routinely listed publicly in online social-networking profiles.” Live by the share, die by the share.

This held true even if the users had all their privacy settings toggled tight, because would-be hijackers could use something called an inference attack method, whereby sensitive information can be found (or guessed) by surfing the timelines and other social sharing of a user’s friends.

Identity-related crime is often a family (and friends) affair. The study found that partners, family members, friends and even acquaintances, had a pretty good shot at guessing their way into your accounts. As noted, “Schechter et al. found in a laboratory study that acquaintances could guess 17% of answers correctly in five tries or fewer, confirming similar results from earlier user studies.”

This is how “Nudegate” happened in 2014, only in that instance the problem was the guessability of celebrities’ security questions—people who lived in the public eye, had been interviewed exhaustively and had few secrets. Make no mistake, when it comes to identity-related crimes and the people who commit them, we are all celebrities.

The study also found that other questions could be answered by dipping into publicly accessible records. Among the instances of low-security questions, the study found that “at least 30% of Texas residents’ mothers’ maiden names can be deduced from birth and marriage records.” Many other potential questions had “very few possible answers,” one example being “favorite superhero.”

Finally, there was social engineering. This is a constant issue. In one cited study, the researchers “were able to extract answers to personal knowledge questions from 92% of users via email phishing.”

What You Can Do

Mark Twain said it first (and perhaps best): “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” Unfortunately, if you tend to tell the truth about yourself via social media, the truth may well get you “got” when it comes to security protocols on the sites you log into. If you’re not good at making up good lies and remembering them — or you just don’t want the hassle — you might want to set up SMS recovery.

Having a PIN code or temporary password sent to your phone via SMS, or a reset link sent via email to an alternate account, seems to be the safer and more reliable option for account recovery, because the chances a would-be attacker has access to your phone or your recovery email account (if you have one) is just not as good as the chances of a good scam artist figuring out the answers to your security questions.

If you still don’t want to give the mega giant harvesters of personally identifiable information your phone number for two-factor authentication, become a better liar. Given the high degree of forgettable security questions, try a system that mixes the truth with something unknowable, or at least hard to guess. Maybe you can sprinkle some simple math in the answer, or make all the dates a month and five days wrong. Only you know what will work in terms of memorability, but you can never know what won’t work when it comes to keeping the bad guys out of your business. And, if you think the bad guys may already have your information, you should check your credit for signs of deeper identity theft. You can do so by pulling your credit reports for free each year at AnnualCreditReport.com and viewing your credit scores for free each month on Credit.com.

Regardless what you decide to do, be careful. With identity-related crimes being the third certainty in life, you need more than luck and a half-hearted security protocol to defend against the threats that are “out there” 24/7/365.

More on Identity Theft:

Image: Rostislav_Sedlacek

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team