I often hear the argument "we shouldn't call bad solutions bad, or people might not use the bad solution", but I strongly disagree and reject that argument. We have a good solution, and we're burning our limited goodwill on snakeoil. 2/2
-
-
One of the main reasons this is still an argument over what advice to give people is the lack of companies supporting solutions like U2F, even most major banks only support weak/limited passwords + SMS 2FA. So people recommend it as a reduction of risk, however small that may be.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TibitXimer @taviso and
These debates too often boil down to an infosec professional’s recommendation amounting to, “well if you can’t afford to implement all these best possible solutions you shouldn’t even be in business.” Sometimes it takes time to get there, and good enough just has to do until then
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheVega @TibitXimer and
Very strongly disagree, who would ever say that? I've never met anybody who argues it's perfection or nothing, most people in security are practical and realists. The debate here is that 2FA is *not* better than nothing.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @taviso @TibitXimer and
It’s never said verbatim, but it often goes that direction. I’m saying not every attacker will know how to bypass 2FA, which is flimsy AF, but that it is still better than nothing in some cases and situations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheVega @TibitXimer and
I really think you're misunderstood what someone was saying, who wouldn't pick a minor improvement if the only two options are nothing or improvement? However, I would pick "nothing" if the only options are nothing or homeopathy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso @TibitXimer and
Perhaps I misconstrued something, but I think comparing 2FA to homeopathy is incorrect. 2FA is not as strong a solution as it was, it’s not ideal, and it’s not going to protect anything, but it is better than nothing if options are limited or cost of moving forward is prohibitive
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TheVega @TibitXimer and
How about this analogy: You complain that the lock on your door is being picked, so someone suggests adding a second pickable lock on the door. I would say no, it's nonsense solution that will inconvenience you and make you less likely to implement real solution in future.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @taviso @TibitXimer and
Better example would be a wooden plank I drop across the door that stops it from opening. Can wood be cut through with a saw? Can you bring a battering ram? Sure! Did you bring those tools? No? Fuck it okay then. Am I an idiot if I call it a day I’m home security? Yes but lol
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheVega @TibitXimer and
That is not a good analogy, that would be a real improvement. Again, the problem with 2FA is that the *same* attack that it defends against can be used to defeat it.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I like U2F, it is a high quality solution to phishing. It can still be defeated with non-phishing attacks like malware and social engineering. Antibiotics are wonderful even though they don't cure cancer. A solution does have to solve a problem, but not all problems.
-
-
Token binding solves malware. I am not sure how does social engineering going to defeat U2F...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @herrjemand @taviso and
Gimme your yubikey I promise I won’t do bad shit with it bby. (If my cute smile just got me your yubikey there ya go).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.