wopwopwop

6 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by wopwopwop 10y ago

   sigh read my response to the other guy
2. 32.▲
   by wopwopwop 10y ago

   I know how it is now , but that's not what I'm talking about. Currently the URL is not included in the hash, that's my point. It could be by having those two talk to each other. Who's the server and who's the clien
3. 33.▲
   by wopwopwop 10y ago

   Very clever, thanks for sharing. However I wouldn't want my second-factor to be attached to my browser. Seems way too volatile for me. Personally I'd rather keep TOTP and be vulnerable to time-of-use phishing. Maybe if the browser
4. 34.▲
   by wopwopwop 10y ago

   No. How long does it take from you entering the code to the code reaching Google? A few tens of miliseconds? With a phisher in the middle it's a couple extra miliseconds.
5. 35.▲
   by wopwopwop 10y ago

   Not really. The phisher can just ask for the second factor the same way they ask for the password.
6. 36.▲
   by wopwopwop 10y ago

   This guy has an interesting YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/enyay
7. 37.▲
   by wopwopwop 10y ago

   Thanks. I've just learned about the concept of SDN.
8. 38.▲
   Ask HN: What is the status of open source “infrastructure”?

   7 points by wopwopwop 10y ago|2 comments
9. 39.▲
   by wopwopwop 10y ago

   Around 4 years too late.
10. 40.▲
    Canary Statement(riseup.net)

    19 points by wopwopwop 10y ago|15 comments