Journalist/Source Codename ambiguity is potentially confusing

[eloquence]

SecureDrop uses the term codename in two very different ways:

• to refer to the Source's codename, which they need in order to log back in through the Source Interface;
• to refer to the designation shown only to journalists in the Journalist Interface.

The potential for confusion between these two codenames is increased by the fact that Sources can cycle codenames upon first generation, and journalists can cycle codenames as many times as they want without any effect on the source.

A source <-> journalist interaction where a journalist discloses the "codename" to the source, or offers to refresh it on their behalf, in an attempt to resolve communication problems is at least conceivable. On the flip side, journalists may be reluctant to use the "refresh codename" feature if they don't understand what the effect on the source is going to be.

User Research Evidence

As of yet, we have no evidence from interviews regarding this question. Since we want to collect evidence concerning the journalist user value of the "Refresh codename" feature in the Journalist Interface, that would be a good time to ask if journalists/admins understand the difference between the two codenames, or if it has been a cause of confusion in the past.

The very different uses of the term have been an occasional cause of confusion for new team members, which by itself is insufficient justification to change the terminology.

[eloquence]

I'm curious if we can still reconstruct the reasoning for the use of the term "codename" instead of "passphrase" in the Source Interface. The 7 word phrase bears little resemblance to what most people would think of as a name. If the only point is to communicate that there is no way to recover it, my sense is that this could be done differently.

[ninavizz]

"Passphrase" sounds like password euro-ized, to me; "Codename" in no way infers an authentication experience.

My hunch is that journalists and sources would communicate about the story the source sends, not about passphrases. Why would the journalist ever cite a codename to their source?

[eloquence]

"Passphrase" sounds like password euro-ized, to me

I feel it's an appropriately widely used term nowadays, and technically more accurate than "password", so that's the substitute I'd lean towards from the source's point of view.

"Codename" to me suggests a name that actually is intended to be used to identify me to the news organization ("Hi, it's me again, benign artichoke"), but in fact what we call the codename in the source interface is a passphrase intended to be kept secret from everyone but myself.

Why would the journalist ever cite a codename to their source?

Hypothetical sequence of events:

1. Source forgets their codename, submits a doc proving their identity and says "I lost your replies because I forgot by codename, can you help"?
2. Journalist notices "Refresh codename" button, clicks it for the relevant source, and responds saying "I just reset your codename to benign artichoke, try again".

Admittedly a bit of a stretch. Still I feel a bit of residual unease about the ambiguity in combination with the mysterious "Refresh codename" button.

I think the more likely scenario is just that journalists may be afraid to touch the "Refresh codename" feature altogether, because it feels scary if you think that it potentially impacts the source's ability to log in.

Either way I'd like to get a better sense of journalists' mental model of what "codename" refers to in different parts of SecureDrop.

[heartsucker]

As a minor note, @bumbleblue and I talked about the codename refresh button. It seems like it's a feature that doesn't need to exist IMO and might just be more confusing and cause more trouble than it's worth.

[ninavizz]

Yeah, @eloquence and I were just chatting about it the other day, too. I think it exists to serve a threat model need. We don't know if anybody wants to or has used it much, tbh. It has been added to the list of "things to ask users about" in future testing sessions.

Generally in security, I feel "threat modeling" makes too fast a transition into defining actual user needs—when sometimes it can be more like "a security wonk thinks this might be useful when a normal human would never think to do 'x' in 'y' situation," and/or the feature implementation is done too oddly to be discoverable or to feel useful to users. Curious if @bumbleblue has ever thought that, or if I'm just reaching too hard with the "my black is better than your black!" hypothesis.

[eloquence]

Update:

• We've generally settled on "journalist designation" as the terminology for the two word designation displayed in the Journalist Interface and the SecureDrop Client. To further standardize on this or a similar term, it may be advisable to document this in the glossary (https://docs.securedrop.org/en/stable/glossary.html).
• The "Refresh codename" feature referenced in this issue has since been removed (Remove "Refresh codename" feature #6195).
• We're considering a transition from codename to passphrase as part of inverting the passphrase generation flow (Source Interface: Flow Inversion #6438).