4 ms·
> Interestingly, my house is secured by a physical object (the key) and it seems sufficient. You could argue that knowing your house is still secured by someth
by joaosilva22 9y ago
> Interestingly, my house is secured by a physical object (the key) and it seems sufficient.
You could argue that knowing your house is still secured by something you have (the key) and something you know (your address).
- mikestew 9y agoYour address isn't a secret, and the "something you know" part of TFA isn't supposed to be common knowledge. To stretch the metaphor, your address is your user name, not the password
- tdb7893 9y agoIt could be the same with a phone (username / phone). I figure between my phone having a password and (I assume) the fact that I would be able to revoke authenticator access to a device quickly I would be comfortable with the risk. I honestly hope this catches on because I would prefer it to the current system of having to manage a bunch of separate passwords (which currently are also saved on my phone)
- Markoff 9y agothis is only fine if you can trust your own phone and that there is no malicious apps doing something, I don't really trust only my password, same as I don't only trust my phone, thus I prefer 2FA for really secure things as tied combination, both factors have weakness
- tdb7893 9y agoThat'd definitely a valid point. It's all about you want to trade off risk and convenience I guess