mdb31
Joined 14 years ago
Joined 14 years ago
Since about the moment that teams all over the world discovered they could just paste the enrollment QR code (a.k.a. private key) into their wikis, and thereby continue unlimited sharing of their role accounts?
So, I guess 30 seconds after its introduction?
Apparently, once you do that, you might be able to add proper authentication. But no word on whether that then replaces the obsolete methods you were forced to configure earlier.
But, yes, right on track to enforce 2FA in 2023, I see...
So, after you enable a broken-by-design 1.5FA method, which you don't want, and which will further expose you to account takeovers, you can, possibly configure actual security.
No wonder these guys are raking in the big bucks...
Maybe it's just my account, but I can't currently enroll my hardware token with Github in any way whatsoever.
Sure, they offer some 1.5FA, but why would I bother with that?
In all cases, I can zoom all elements (text, images, the works) just fine, up to 500%.
Firefox 100 on Windows. Is this just another one of those "Safari on IOS is broken, so the Web is broken" things, or is there more to it?
So, on "I'm on top of the world" days, I get assigned All The Issues, get a full-screen popup about each mention, and will be asked to be incident lead on just about anything.
Then, if my state is "slightly hungover", I mostly get a list of the most pressing issues still pending, without being overloaded with new stuff.
And finally, the "hugging my teddy bear" state: no additional automated workloads, respectful notifications to anyone pinging me, and a note to my manager if it lasts more than a few days?
If the US is able to attract the majority of that (as it most likely will), while keeping out the Putin-aligned plants and/or otherwise mentally deficient factions (which remains to be seen), that will definitely be huge gain for them.
It doesn't seem they even tried this in this case? So this should be a dismissal right away, albeit at great emotional/monetary expense to the original owner. Unfair, but yeah, cryptobros will be cryptobros, and any harm to members of society is just for the good of society, I'm sure...
(Later edit: so, apparently I'm wrong, and there is no binding arbitration clause. Still, lame action, and this seems the exact situation arbitration is designed for, especially since 'local courts' is not exactly well-defined for .com...)
In some cases, you can fix this by asking the sender to be, like, normal. This works half the time, the other half involves referrals to HR...
This is held up as a great example of transparent communication. For me, this is true, but only for the meaning of 'transparent' which equates to 'you can see right through it, to the extent there is effectively nothing there'.
But as per the article this comment thread is about, this kind of response apparently the 'professional' state-of-the-art.
Yes, I despair too...
That's hard to dispute, but will you accept https://guide.duo.com/duo-restore as a counterexample?
> Are you perhaps referring to the Google Authenticator or the Microsoft Authenticator apps when you refer to TOTP
No, I'm referring to the actual RFC 6283 TOTP protocol. Which uses a trivially-cloned single private key. Which is, see the example above, in fact trivially cloned 'for convenience' by at least one widely-used 'enterprise' security solution.
> What makes you think they don't "securely" make a few duplicates themselves?
Since that literally makes no sense if you know how hardware tokens work.