The Likely Future Of Access Tools: Will They Continue To Be

The likely future of access tools will they continue to be

What is the likely future of access tools? Will they continue to be useful security measures? In your discussion, predict what you believe is the future of passwords. Under what conditions would you recommend using each of these funding methods to pay for information systems expenses: allocation, chargeback, and corporate budget? Describe the conditions under which ROI, payback period, NPV, and EVA are most appropriately applied to information systems investments.

Paper For Above instruction

The future of access tools, particularly passwords, is a highly debated topic in cybersecurity. As technology advances, traditional passwords are increasingly viewed as inadequate for securing sensitive information due to their vulnerability to hacking, phishing, and social engineering attacks. The trajectory suggests a shift towards more robust, user-friendly, and multi-layered authentication methods. These include biometric authentication such as fingerprint, facial recognition, and iris scans, as well as hardware tokens and behavioral biometrics, which analyze user behavior patterns to verify identity (Das et al., 2020). The future will likely see a decreased reliance on passwords alone, integrating these with artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms for adaptive security measures. Additionally, the adoption of passwordless solutions, such as biometric authentication and cryptographic tokens, will become more prevalent as organizations strive to enhance user convenience without compromising security (ISO/IEC 27001, 2022). Consequently, passwords will not entirely disappear but will be part of a layered security approach that continuously adapts to emerging threats and technological capabilities.

Access tools' future evolution will be significantly influenced by the increasing need for seamless, user-friendly security measures that do not hinder productivity. Biometric authentication, especially, is poised to dominate because it leverages unique physiological identifiers that are difficult to replicate or steal. For example, facial recognition technology has improved significantly, enabling contactless, quick, and secure access in various environments, including mobile devices and corporate facilities (Ratha et al., 2022). Furthermore, behavioral biometrics, which monitor typing speed, mouse movements, and device handling, offer continuous authentication, improving security in persistent sessions (Yampolskiy, 2021). The integration of AI enhances threat detection and response capabilities, making access tools smarter and more adaptive. Nevertheless, concerns regarding privacy, data security, and potential biases in biometric systems will need careful management to ensure user trust and compliance with regulations (Guszcza et al., 2020).

The adoption of passwordless authentication systems such as FIDO2, which relies on public key cryptography, signifies a paradigm shift. These systems eliminate the risks associated with password theft and reuse, providing a more secure and user-centric experience (FIDO Alliance, 2021). As organizations recognize the costs and repercussions of data breaches, the investment in advanced access tools will likely accelerate. Cloud-based identity management solutions further facilitate seamless security across multiple devices and platforms, supporting remote work and digital transformation initiatives (Cser, 2020). Regulatory frameworks and standards, such as GDPR and NIST guidelines, will continue to shape the deployment of secure access mechanisms, emphasizing transparency, privacy, and user control (NIST, 2022). Overall, the future of access tools is geared toward multi-factor, biometric, and contextual authentication that is resilient against sophisticated cyber threats, all while prioritizing ease of use and user privacy.

In terms of funding methods for information systems expenses, different conditions dictate the most appropriate approach. Allocation, which involves distributing costs across various departments or projects, works best when costs are shared among several units that benefit collectively from the expenditure. For example, infrastructure upgrades that support multiple business functions are ideal candidates for allocation (Laudon & Laudon, 2021). Chargeback systems are suitable when there is a need to assign costs directly to the specific units or departments that utilize the systems, encouraging accountability and cost-awareness. This method is often employed in organizations with a focus on cost control and internal billing, such as data centers or specialized IT services (Carr, 2020). The corporate budget approach is most appropriate when projects are strategic, long-term, and benefit the entire organization or are funded through capital expenditures approved at the executive level. This approach allows for comprehensive planning and resource allocation aligned with organizational priorities (O’Brien & Marakas, 2020).

Regarding investment evaluation methods, ROI (Return on Investment) is most useful for assessing the profitability of specific projects or initiatives in quantitative terms, especially when immediate or short-term financial gains are expected (Ross et al., 2022). The payback period is suitable for projects where quick recovery of investment is critical, typically in rapidly changing or high-risk environments where cash flow constraints exist (Harrison et al., 2019). NPV (Net Present Value) provides a comprehensive assessment of potential long-term value by accounting for the time value of money, making it ideal for large, strategic investments with uncertain future benefits (Brigham & Houston, 2021). EVA (Economic Value Added) measures a company’s true economic profit after deducting the cost of all capital employed, making it most appropriate for ongoing operational performance evaluation and management decisions aimed at value creation (Stewart, 2020). Thus, selecting the right metric depends on the specific context, risk profile, time horizon, and strategic goals of the investment.

References

  • Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2021). Fundamentals of financial management (15th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  • Carr, H. (2020). Data center management: Cost control strategies. Journal of Information Technology, 35(3), 215–226.
  • Cser, L. (2020). Cloud computing and identity management. International Journal of Cloud Computing, 8(2), 131–145.
  • Das, S., Dey, L., & Dutta, A. (2020). Biometrics in cybersecurity: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 17(4), 854–869.
  • FIDO Alliance. (2021). FIDO2 and passwordless authentication standards. FIDO Alliance Publications. https://fidoalliance.org
  • Guszcza, J., Mahmud, A., & Papadopoulos, G. (2020). Privacy and bias in biometric authentication: Navigating the ethical landscape. Ethical Computing Journal, 12(1), 45–59.
  • ISO/IEC 27001. (2022). Information security management systems — Requirements. International Organization for Standardization.
  • Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2021). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (16th ed.). Pearson.
  • NIST. (2022). Digital identity guidelines. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-63-3. https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/
  • Yampolskiy, R. V. (2021). Behavioral biometrics for continuous authentication. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, 3(2), 101–120.

Related Assignments