3 ms·

Sure, you could even reduce phishing attack success rates to nearly 0% by having users authenticate with a sample of their DNA. Does that mean it's a great ide

Sure, you could even reduce phishing attack success rates to nearly 0% by having users authenticate with a sample of their DNA. Does that mean it's a great idea? What about losing the yubikey? In any case it's a different matter when it comes to high stake scenarios, in which case I don't mind something slightly more sophisticated. But not as the default for everything.

superkuh 3y ago
>having users authenticate with a sample of their DNA. I know it's not your point and I agree with everything you're saying in this thread 100%, but DNA based login would be a username, not a password. Like all biometrics. And it'd have a really bad false positive rate if you're just doing restriction enzyme cut location tests like lots of "police work". A full exome scan ~$300-500/per might do it.
- antonjs 3y ago
  And as you point out, the problem with biometrics is that once they're stolen or copied, there's no changing them. Particularly your DNA.
JCharante 3y ago
> What about losing the yubikey? I have 5 yubikeys on multiple continents. If I lose one I can log in with the others and remove login access with the compromised yubikey.
- xormapmap 3y ago
  > I have 5 yubikeys on multiple continents Are you actually retarded or just disingenuous? This is hardly a workable solution even for security nuts, let alone the average person.