Asklemmy

43970 readers

638 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

209

Can I refuse MS Authenticator? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

264 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So my company decided to migrate office suite and email etc to Microsoft365. Whatever. But for 2FA login they decided to disable the option to choose "any authenticator" and force Microsoft Authenticator on the (private) phones of both employees and volunteers. Is there any valid reason why they would do this, like it's demonstrably safer? Or is this a battle I can pick to shield myself a little from MS?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean the only real issue I see with this is that they require people to use their personal phones for this. Should not mix work and private data, and this should be in the interest of the corp, too. As in, issue work phones!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

From a practical PoV - most people have their phone on them all the time. A work phone or a physical token can (and will) get forgotten, a personal phone much less.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Yeah but legally it's a bit more iffy once something gets breached and then it turns out that no, private phones are not covered by the stuff you signed for work security (because they usually cannot be, rather most written stuff explicitly forbids people from using their private phones for stuff like this, even in company who expect workers to do it).