![]() |
|
2-factor authentication - Printable Version +- Sinisterly (https://sinister.ly) +-- Forum: General (https://sinister.ly/Forum-General) +--- Forum: Announcements (https://sinister.ly/Forum-Announcements) +---- Forum: Suggestions (https://sinister.ly/Forum-Suggestions) +----- Forum: Old Suggestions (https://sinister.ly/Forum-Old-Suggestions) +----- Thread: 2-factor authentication (/Thread-2-factor-authentication) Pages:
1
2
|
RE: 2-factor authentication - zorrophreak - 08-06-2016 GAuth is nice, and I would say make it optional, although 2FA is something that should probably be user wide, maybe accessible at a certain post count or something. Because it kinda sucks to have to pay/upgrade with NSP just for 2FA RE: 2-factor authentication - sleaze - 08-06-2016 (08-06-2016, 02:55 AM)zorrophreak Wrote: GAuth is nice, and I would say make it optional, although 2FA is something that should probably be user wide, maybe accessible at a certain post count or something. Because it kinda sucks to have to pay/upgrade with NSP just for 2FA why is everyone suggesting that you should have to jump through hoops for the site to offer you security? RE: 2-factor authentication - meow - 08-06-2016 (08-06-2016, 03:28 AM)sleaze Wrote:(08-06-2016, 02:55 AM)zorrophreak Wrote: GAuth is nice, and I would say make it optional, although 2FA is something that should probably be user wide, maybe accessible at a certain post count or something. Because it kinda sucks to have to pay/upgrade with NSP just for 2FA What this guy said. To everyone who thinks there should be some requirement for having 2FA, there is literally no point in having a post count/upgrade for something that affects nobody on the forum except you. Furthermore, security should be a right, not a privilege. RE: 2-factor authentication - zorrophreak - 08-06-2016 I'm not saying there should be a requirement, I honestly think 2FA should be available on signup and for all users. I'm saying if there has to be some requirement it should at least only be like a post count. RE: 2-factor authentication - mothered - 08-06-2016 Definitely so. As long as Two Factor Authentication (2FA) Is Implemented In It's correct form as follows: 2FA must contain two of the following three (authentication MUST derive from separate entities): * Something you know (example, Password, PIN number, security question). * Something you have (example, Cell phone, Smart card). * Something you are (example, Biometrics- fingerprint, retinal scan). Obviously the first two will apply here. Good suggestion Indeed. RE: 2-factor authentication - Aeolian - 08-06-2016 You're right, that was a stupid suggestion on my part. Either way we should get this implemented. RE: 2-factor authentication - 4tune - 08-07-2016 Sure, having an extra layer of security would be good to have. Having it would make Members feel a lot more safe. Support. Good suggestion, OP. RE: 2-factor authentication - Wildfire - 08-07-2016 (08-06-2016, 05:19 AM)mothered Wrote: Definitely so. Wouldn't two passwords just defeat the purpose? RE: 2-factor authentication - mothered - 08-08-2016 (08-07-2016, 03:40 PM)Axari Wrote: Wouldn't two passwords just defeat the purpose? Having 2 entities of the "same" type, Is not classed as 2FA. As you know, they must be 2 separate types of authentication (as mentioned above). As to whether two passwords will defeat the purpose, personally, I don't believe It will. Having two locks on your front door (with separate keys) to authorize access Is better than just the one. Having two passwords based on a password complexity requirement of completely different algorithms, Is better than having only the one. |