4 ms·
I don't love this either, but it's basically the same inconvenience as having multi factor authentication turned on. There's something very appealing about not
by RandallBrown 6y ago
I don't love this either, but it's basically the same inconvenience as having multi factor authentication turned on.
There's something very appealing about not having a password that I need to store anywhere for that service too.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> I don't love this either, but it's basically the same inconvenience as having multi factor authentication turned on. MFA usually uses channels that are intended to be relative low latency (or that don't require realtime out-of-band transmission, like TOTP). Email, OTOH, isn't generally reliably low-latency
- RandallBrown 6y agoIs there a technical detail of email that I don't know about that makes it less low-latency than a text message? Email or text would work the same for this auth scheme anyway.
- hunter2_ 6y agotangent: SMS doesn't have the security needed for most things. We can let it be a part of auth when combined with another factor, albeit begrudgingly.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoSMS can be delivered days late. It isn't any better than email.
- pelasaco 6y agoAnd as I discovered in my own service: If the SMS aren't being sent - or the clients aren't getting them - there are so many parts involved that's really hard to pinpoint the problem and get an ETA for the solution..
- tonoto 6y agoE-mail, especially when the MTA and MUA is connected to different environments, which requires relaying, could be particular slow (minutes, hours) if the e-mail hops on busy services.