this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
730 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

59672 readers
2852 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Doesn't synced solutions completely defeat the purpose of MFA?

[–] JasonDJ 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Not if you protect the master key with MFA, like a yubikey. Then it's cryptographically secure for quite a while..at least until quantum computing is affordable enough to be used against your data. Or the database and your yubikey and yourbpassphrase are compromised

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You've got a good point. I wonder if this an example of a trade-off between convenience and security. If you're logging in and you get an MFA prompt, a Yubikey has to be physically searched, while Bitwarden or Proton Pass only have to be clicked. A Yubikey can only hold a limited amount of accounts, while Bitwarden or Proton Pass could hold many more. Of course, a Yubikey could be used as MFA for Bitwarden or Proton Pass, but that would create a single point of failure and reduce factor separation (which I think is your original point).

While I posted a Bitwarden or Proton Pass recommendation of sorts, I genuinely wonder if it's advisable to not use MFA at all if the factors will not be separated. Or, perhaps, the best security solution is the one you'll actually use. I guess the answer is the good ol' "What's your security model?"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I wonder if this an example of a trade-off between convenience and security.

I genuinely wonder if it's advisable to not use MFA at all if the factors will not be separated. Or, perhaps, the best security solution is the one you'll actually use

Your first and last statements are correct. Using your password manager as your MFA is a trade off with security and convenience, but that added convenience helps make it more usable so you actually use it. Anything is a trade up for most peoples' awful password hygiene, so the trade off is worth it in my opinion.

Regarding the advisability of combining password and MFA into one platform: while you are lowering the overall security of your accounts, if you secure the main account with a long/strong password and a hardware security key, I would say that's still more secure than not having 2FA enabled or not using secure passwords.