3 ms·

> Google Authenticator is better, but still has fatal flaws. What flaws do you mean?

• BoppreH 9y ago
  I left it out because this is a separate rant. Cliff notes: - Backup is per-website. Every new registration requires you to e.g. print a slip of paper and store it in your safe/friend's house/secret drawer. - Each website has to implement their own backup flow. That's extra cost, hurts adoption, and some don't even bother with that. - The PIN is extremely low-entropy, which requires absolutely perfect rate-limiting. As soon as the attacker is able to side-step the rate-limiting (which has a large surface area), the OTP is useless. - The PIN is vulnerable to shoulder-surfing and surveillance. Can you type the PIN faster than the attacker that's using OCR? - Typing a PIN number (that has a timer!) adds friction and mental angst. - And I may be wrong, but as I understand all devices have the same level of trust. If your phone is stolen, it's a race to revoke the thief's codes before they revoke yours. Ideally you should have some "master secret" in your safe/friend's house/secret drawer, that is able to revoke any and all devices because it's the safest secret you have. - It's only suitable as a second factor, not primary. You are probably also using passwords, which adds a whole lot more security and usability problems.
  • technofiend 9y ago
    Add in that google's own migration tool does not port the app's database. So if you switch phones you're left manually doing a disable/re-enable loop for every provider, unless you printed or screenshotted the original QR codes at signup.