Saturday, July 13, 2024
Google search engine
HomeUncategorizedAgainst risk-based authentication (or, why I wouldn't trust Google Cloud)

Against risk-based authentication (or, why I wouldn’t trust Google Cloud)

If you were deciding on whether to use AWS, Azure or Google Cloud for a
production application, what factors would you use to make the decision? There
are probably many such factors you might think of, but I’d like to point out
one that probably isn’t commonly considered: the relative trustworthiness of
Google’s accounts system compared to that of, say, AWS.

Google’s accounts system controls access to all Google services, including
Google Cloud. The problem with this is that the design of Google’s accounts
system gives me serious reservations trusting it for anything mission-critical.

The problem lies ultimately with the modern trend of “risk-based authentication”.
However, a more descriptive term would be “non-deterministic login”.

The problem is precisely this: The credentials you require to access a Google
account are essentially indeterminate. Supposedly, for a simple Google account
without 2FA enabled, knowledge of the account email and password should be
sufficient to access an account; except sometimes, they aren’t. Sometimes,
Google might randomly decide your login attempt is suspicious, and demand you
complete some additional verification step.

This sounds potentially innocuous until you then realise that there’s no
guarantee you can actually complete this additional verification step. There
are to my recollection numerous stories of people being locked out of accounts
which they have the passwords for because Google has decided that things are
suspicious and having the password is not enough.

The problem is not with requiring a high level of authentication; for example,
enabling 2FA is commonly considered a best practice nowadays. If I enable 2FA,
I’m committing to be able to complete that authentication challenge in the
future and can make appropriate arrangements. The problem is that Google seems
to reserve the right to randomly and unpredictably demand a higher level of
authentication without any kind of prior opt-in. It’s the unpredictability
that’s the problem here.

What makes this unpredictability particularly pernicious is that it creates the
possibility of being able to access an account for a long period of time before
suddenly having that access essentially destroyed without warning or recourse. If some
additional authentication step X is required for every single login, you’re
going to make sure you can always complete that additional authentication step.
If additional authentication step X is instead only demanded for logins which
are deemed “suspicious” according to the inscrutable statistical determination
of some ML model, there’s a good chance you will have no idea that that
additional authentication step X may be a necessary condition to accessing the
account under some circumstances. Which means the first time you find out
about this is when your infrastructure blows up, you have to login from a different
machine than you usually do, and Google decides this is “suspicious” and demands
an additional authentication step — and because this is the first time you
find out about this, it may or may not be an authentication step you are
capable of completing. If it isn’t, you’re screwed as far as Google Cloud is
concerned. You can’t access your infrastructure or begin to fix it.

Fundamentally, the issue here comes down to the fact that an accounts system
for critical infrastructure needs to fulfill two objectives:

  • It must be possible for authorized users to gain access.
  • It must not be possible for unauthorized users to gain access.

“Risk-based” authentication essentially tries too hard to fulfil the second
objective in a way that compromises on the former.

In particular, if access to an account can be mission-critical, it’s desirable
for all authentication steps needed to access it to be tested regularly. This
suggests that if an accounts system designed for critical infrastructure has a
repertoire of authentication steps A, B, C it can variously demand, it’s
better for it to demand A, B and C every time than to demand A and B in most
cases, and also C if the login is deemed “suspicious” on undocumented
statistical grounds. The inconvenience of always having to go through step C
is nothing relative to the risk that if C isn’t demanded most of the time,
the account holder may not understand that C is sometimes necessary until
it’s too late, and lose access to the account.

In short, what I want from an infrastructure accounts system is determinism. I
explicitly don’t want any non-deterministic, “risk-based” or ML decision
involved in a decision as to whether I can access an account which controls
critical infrastructure, because refusing access when it should have been granted
can be every bit as disastrous as granting access when it should have been denied.
In other words, an accounts system for critical infrastructure:

  • must grant access to the holder of the pre-arranged set of credentials (availability — possession of the credentials is a sufficient condition);
  • must not grant access to anyone who doesn’t hold all of those credentials (security — possession of the credentials is a necessary condition).

There’s no room for statistics or guesstimation of “suspiciousness” here. The
desirable property is total predictability. It’s as essential that I be able to
be 100% confident that I can access an account when I need to, even if it’s
in emergency circumstances that appear unusual to Google, as it is knowing that
anyone else without the required credentials can’t.

Document it? Could Google fix this by documenting the full set of
authentication steps that may be required under the worst (most “suspicious”)
circumstances? Maybe, in principle. In practice for the reasons I give above,
if some additional authentication step X is requested only sometimes, some
account holders will neglect to realise this until it’s too late. But it
would certainly be useful for the shrewd cloud administrator who reads all the

However in practice, this doesn’t work for two reasons. Firstly, Google seems
to change their attitudes to authentication over time, so just because they
have a certain strategy regarding risk-based authentication today doesn’t mean they
will later. Moreover, if they do change it, they’re probably not going to
bother to tell you. Even if you do your research and determine that in the
worst case, Google might demand authentication steps A, B and C to access an
account in “suspicious” circumstances, this doesn’t help you if they later
revise their approach to authentication and start demanding step D for
“suspicious” logins as well. In other words, the meta-problem here is
not just the non-determinism of the login process but that Google also
seems to see fit to revise the requirements for the “worst-case” login
process over time without making any particular announcement. Thus the login
process is both statistically and temporally non-deterministic; even if you
do your research to determine what authentication steps are required for login
in the worst case today (if it’s even documented), you can’t actually predict
what Google might require as a verification step for login in the future after
they rearrange their system.

So you can’t really mitigate the risk of account lockout in this way. All you
really know is that when accessing a Google account at some point in time in
the future, you may be asked to complete some arbitrary and unforeseeable
authentication step X, which you may or may not actually be able to complete,
and where the nature of step X may also have been invented by Google in the
future. So how can you be sure you’ll be able to access a Google Cloud account
hosting critical infrastructure in an emergency? In short, you can’t.

Sorry, we just don’t like you. Actually, as far as I can tell, it gets even worse. So
far we’ve assumed that Google might spring some hidden extra authentication
step on you at the worst possible time which you didn’t know might sometimes be
required. Except it seems like sometimes, Google will just refuse to let you
authenticate at all. Not even “please complete this extra authentication step”
(which you may or may not be able to actually complete), but an actual “nope,
you’re too suspicious, not letting you login, go away please”.

Actually, “suspicious” is not even the right word. It seems like Google now
determines whether you are allowed to even try and login based on all sorts
of factors, like whether it happens to like your web browser enough. If it
doesn’t, you’re offered no recourse, and Google basically just tells you to get

[Google: Couldn't sign you in. This browser or app may not be supported. Try using a different browser. If you're already using a supported browser, you can refresh your screen and try again to sign in.]

This isn’t really OK under any circumstance, since any statistical decision can
always be wrong and there needs to be some way (however arduous) to prove your
authenticity in the face of a statistical determination of high risk, however
arbitrarily high that assessment might be. But moreover, we’re not talking
about something like, “there have been 50 failed attempts to login from this IP
in the last hour”. When does Google show the above notice? Apparently at least
one circumstance is, when you’re using an unapproved web
Users of niche web
browsers on Linux have complained that the Google accounts system simply won’t
allow them to to login at all. That’s right — it’s 2023 and we’re back to user
agent sniffing, exemplified by no less than Google.

To put it simply, I’m not willing to trust critical infrastructure to an
accounts system that under some indeterminate and inscrutable set of
conditions, might simply refuse to let me log in at all.

Such a system might have good security but it severely lacks availability.
For critical infrastructure, this is a disaster.

A consumer-grade accounts system. More generally there are some other
strange things about the use of the Google accounts system for Google Cloud.
Fundamentally, the accounts system is clearly consumer-oriented. A lot of this
risk-based authentication seems based on the general premise that most users of
the Google Accounts system can’t really be trusted to set secure passwords and
are their own worst enemies.

This attitude… might be true for consumer accounts, although it does lead
to people being locked out of their Google accounts they’ve poured decades into
due to, again, risk-based authentication and suddenly being asked to verify
using some authentication step they can’t complete. Horror stories of this
nature in fact frequently arise on popular tech news sites and even have become
something of a staple. It is moreover actively hazardous for an accounts system
gating access to critical infrastructure.

I think a big part of the problem here is that Google is trying to force two
very different domains to use the same accounts system. In fact, the use of the
consumer-focused Google accounts system for Google Cloud comes across as weird
in all sorts of ways. It’s simply weird that in order to use Google Cloud, I
have to get an account which can also be used to upvote YouTube videos. I
question the logic of demanding that these separate systems use unified
authentication, when the security requirements for these different domains are
so different.

Probably the most surreal demonstration of this forced-unity approach however,
is Google Cloud’s usage of Google Groups.

If you’re familiar with basically any access control system — whether it’s that
of UNIX, AWS IAM, or Windows AD — you’re surely familiar with the idea of
having users which can be placed into groups.

How do user groups work in Google Cloud? Well, you see… to create a group of
users for access control purposes in Google Cloud, you have to create a Google

Yes, that Google Groups. Yes, I’m talking about the thing that started out as a
Usenet gateway and archive called “Dejanews” which got acquired by Google in
2001 and turned into Google Groups, and which is now a somewhat horrible
mailing list system. If you want to create a security group in Google Cloud,
you have to create it as… a Google Group.

It’s like there’s some bureaucrat at Google whose prime responsibility is for
ensuring that Google doesn’t accidentially create duplicate products (but who
has a weird and inexplicable blind spot for chat products), and who upon
hearing that Google Cloud needed a user group system, ran their finger down a
list of Google products and said “we already have a groups product. Google
Groups. Use that.”

I don’t want my security groups system for critical cloud infrastructure
to be inextricably intertwined with a Usenet archive and mailing list system.
Just… what?

Comparison to AWS. The absurdity of all this is especially clear when you
compare it to, say, AWS’s IAM. In AWS, a user belongs specifically to an AWS
account, and as such that AWS account gets to control authentication policies.
The account can decide what credentials are required for access, and, at least
as far as I can tell, AWS’s login process for IAM users is completely
deterministic. IAM users can be placed into IAM groups, which have nothing to
do with Usenet.

This highlights another problem with Google’s attempt to use their consumer
accounts system for cloud infrastructure: individual user accounts don’t
“belong” to an organisation. Google Cloud’s IAM has you grant access to
existing Google Accounts as identified by their email addresses, whether
directly or indirectly via a (yes) Google Group. However these accounts
are completely normal consumer accounts. This is a fundamental difference
here. Google can’t give cloud users the ability to control what
authentication steps should be required for an account (for example, to disable
risk-based authentication) because those accounts don’t “belong” to the
organisation and can be used to access other non-organisation resources, thus
every account must have the same rules.

Workspaces workaround. As far as I can tell there is one partial mitigation
of some of the issues here, which is to use Google Workspaces, previously known
as Google Apps. Of course, this product is oriented around Gmail, Google Docs,
Sheets, etc. and competing with products like Office 365. However, a silver
lining to this is that an administrator of a Google Workspace can create
accounts which belong to that organisation. Moreover, because those accounts
belong to that organisation, it appears that administrators of the workspace
can to some extent define authentication policy.

This isn’t a complete mitigation of the issues raised here, however.
Fundamentally the true problem with the Google accounts system is its
fickleness, both at any point in time, but also temporally as Google changes
the system. Using Google Workspaces isn’t sufficient to allay concerns that
Google might arbitrarily decide to refuse to let me log in at all, whether due
to using the wrong web browser or for who knows what other reason.

Conclusions. In my view, Google shouldn’t attempt to use their consumer
accounts system for cloud infrastructure. The requirements are simply too
different and the use of things like Google Groups to model security groups
borders on absurdity. There is a common attitude in IT, especially as regards
authentication systems, that everything must be unified and there must be
only one
. There are two fallacies here:

  • First is the fallacy that there is one set of requirements which are
    suitable for all authentication systems, which clearly isn’t true (consider
    how the optimal level of fraud is

    for some systems — but clearly not for others).

  • The second is is that unification of any two given namespaces of accounts
    is always desirable. This also isn’t true because (amongst other reasons) if
    an account belongs to a namespace of restricted scope, the controller of that
    namespace can reasonably be given full control over those accounts and the
    authentication policy which is applied to them; whereas if accounts can only
    exist in a universal namespace, all accounts must be subject to the same
    rules (and then see the first fallacy).

    Limiting the scope of services an account can address is also a perfectly
    normal security practice, of course. It’s simply strange that to use Google
    Cloud, I have to grant permissions to accounts which can also be used to
    upvote YouTube videos.

Further reading. There are innumerate discussions online about people
being locked out of Google accounts without recourse, often accounts which
have literally been held for decades. This

lists just the instances discussed on HN alone. This

provides some further discussion.

Read More



  1. I participated on this casino platform and managed a significant amount, but after some time, my mother fell sick, and I needed to cash out some money from my account. Unfortunately, I faced problems and was unable to finalize the cashout. Tragically, my mom passed away due to such gambling platform. I plead for your assistance in bringing attention to this website. Please assist me to obtain justice, so that others won’t have to experience the suffering I am going through today, and stop them from crying tears like mine. 😭😭😭�


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -
Google search engine

Most Popular

Recent Comments