Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You use the backup keys the service gave you when you enabled 2FA.



Those backup keys defeat the entire purpose of 2FA and are like storing passwords in plain text. It only takes 1, maybe 2 of those codes for an attacker to add another security key to your account for future unlimited access.

Supporting multiple keys is a better solution.


Supporting multiple keys is a good idea but it solves a different problem. People want peace of mind.

Backup codes are not like passwords in at least two important ways:

* The site picks them, not you, so they're random nonsense different for each code, rather than inevitably being password1234 and being the same on Instagram, Twitter and your bank account.

* You don't need them usually, so there's no reason you'll have them to hand, which then makes it harder to steal them. Even for a social engineering attack, you increase the friction because now to help the attackers a user needs to go find their backup keys which is a hassle.


I think the parent’s point is that if you’re going to allow backup codes you might as well just add “second password” as a form of 2FA and enforce some basic complexity requirements.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: