Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Phone numbers are not proper verification

b1nary.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#151

Post by Buge »

ProblemFactory wrote: post #88
Buge wrote: post #3

Google does let you have 2 factor setup without a phone number as a factor, but strangely you need a phone number temporarily. You add the phone number as a factor, then add other factors (such as Google Authenticator and Yubikeys) then delete the phone number.

Can you even create a working Google account without a phone number? When I last tried that, it seemed to be mandatory from the start. It never seemed to be a security measure, but an anti-spam measure. You can buy captcha solving as a service for fractions of a cent, and bulk create thousands of accounts for sending spam. Buying working phone numbers is more hassle and more expensive, and will leave a payment trail…

You can, but only if Google thinks your IP address has a low likelihood of spam.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#152

Post by mark242 »

herbst wrote: post #13
mark242 wrote: post #10

This rant is exactly why phone numbers are a good way to do two-factor. The author lost control of their phone number ("as i quit the account shortly...") and subsequently had an extremely hard time authenticating to their bank, Google, Twitter, etc. Getting a new phone number set up is time consuming, even with a Twilio-like service. This is a good thing. Your IMEI number isn't portable, and until there is a physica…

Author here. I dont have a fixed telephone number anymore. How to handle that? I dont see why i would need one except for authentification purposes ether. My point is that depending on people have a phone number, and even more one that is widely supported (which my current numbers are not) is simply wrong. Sure i could call my bank one a month to change my telephone number, which i loose control of shortly after that…

"I dont have a fixed telephone number anymore. How to handle that?"

Get a fixed telephone number.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#153

Post by jedimastert »

herbst wrote: post #140
jedimastert wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the Namecheap TOS[1], it says they can terminate you at any time. [1] https://www.namecheap.com/legal/domains/registration-agreeme...

You are twisting reality here. It says they warn me 30 days prior and if i do not move my domains until then they will terminate it. Which makes sense, they dont have, for some reason, keep me as client if they dont want to.

I missed that part; that's my bad.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#154

Post by lostboys67 »

Nadya wrote: post #129
manigandham wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> multiple people using the same google accounts Why would you do this? Whether personal or work related, Google has always said to keep accounts tied to an individual.

Team managing a GA account for a client. Which is not uncommon for internet marketing companies.

exactly any non trivial site that uses google products will have accounts used by multiple people one person doesn't run all of proctor and gambles PPC

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#155

Post by casualstroller »

If phone number can't be validated, there should be other alternatives offered. It bugs me when I land in another country and the airport's WiFi hotspot wants my phone number. D'uh! It doesn't work yet until I get a local SIM, and I don't want to turn it on 'coz my operator will instantly charge for the incoming verification SMS and whatever else was queued for delivery. What about those who don't have a phone?

Please offer an alternative method. Like, allow Internet access for 2 minutes and do an email verification.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#156

Post by Freak_NL »

Jordrok wrote: post #149
Freak_NL wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam does this as well. Even if you add your phone number after a lot of nagging, Steam still keeps bothering you to install their Android or IOS authenticator software (even if you can't). I wish Steam would consider Fido U2F as well, but getting through to anyone who can influence this at Valve is nigh impossible. It seems to be the industry status quo now to assume that everyone uses a smartphone running either A…

Yeah, I just ran into something similar a few days ago. Every once in a while I used to go through all my trading cards and bulk sell all my duplicates for a few cents each, but apparently now they require you to use some combination of SMS and mobile app authentication to post anything on the market. Clicking through the confirmation email they send you isn't enough on its own. So now I just don't bother with tradin…

My experience exactly. I used to sell those silly cards the moment I got them, just to get a little extra balance in my Steam account for the next purchase. Now I just ignore them; selling them is way to much of a hassle to be worth the €0,05 you get for a card. (Who buys those things anyway? Weird market.)

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#157

Post by kintamanimatt »

herbst wrote: post #146
kintamanimatt wrote: post #101

The solution to protect against loss is to have a backup. Keep a backup SIM from your home country (or for every country in which you have an important account), so in case of loss you can switch over to your backup and you can avoid this fuckery. In my experience it's not hard to keep a prepaid SIM active, even if it's not in active use. This advice also applies to your wallet too: have a second bank account (at lea…

Heh, i actually tried. They would invalidate my other sim if i get a second one. There is no such thing as "backup sim" with the provider i was with.

Then use a different provider.

I'm not trying to suggest you get a redundant SIM on the same account; that's not possible. You get a second prepaid account (with a different number) with either the same or a different carrier.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#158

Post by herbst »

kintamanimatt wrote: post #157
herbst wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, i actually tried. They would invalidate my other sim if i get a second one. There is no such thing as "backup sim" with the provider i was with.

Then use a different provider. I'm not trying to suggest you get a redundant SIM on the same account; that's not possible. You get a second prepaid account (with a different number) with either the same or a different carrier.

How would that solve the initial issue tho? I still would have to change my phone number with dozens of different services.

Re: Phone numbers are not proper verification

#159

Post by kintamanimatt »

herbst wrote: post #158
kintamanimatt wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then use a different provider. I'm not trying to suggest you get a redundant SIM on the same account; that's not possible. You get a second prepaid account (with a different number) with either the same or a different carrier.

How would that solve the initial issue tho? I still would have to change my phone number with dozens of different services.

If you're looking for a work-free backup/restore solution, those don't exist. The point is that you'll at least have immediate access to an active number from your home country that you can give to your banks or whatever. This means your banks (and others) aren't going to be weirded out by that non-domestic phone number, which is a problem you were describing.

Sometimes you'll be able to port your number too.

Post reply on HN