Earlier quoted context omitted.
Access tokens are used for network calls so if the network is down nothing works anyway ?
You mean the power going out is related to why my computer will not respond and the screen went blank? That's strange
Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure
171–180 of 539 posts
Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure
#172A lot of infosec authorities move away from this.
However, I always wonder, does it make sense for an org to stop with periodic password resets if: 1. the org is not very capable in detecting all account compromises; 2. in practice, users leak their passwords (e.g. by getting phished) and not all of them lead to direct intrusions, some credentials are sold first and it may take weeks/months to cause an intrusion.
I believe that in practice, forced password changes at least ensure that unknown compromised passwords will become outdated at some point in time, and I think that this is positive.
Ultimately, I believe the best thing to do is to move to FIDO2-authentication here.
But I do wonder what are other peoples takes on this topic?
Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure
#173Remember when it was called SINGLE sign on? Emphasis on SINGLE? I mean, this whole idea has been such a mess forever. Why am I prompted to SSO hundreds of times a day?
As far as I've understood/remember SSO was logging on with a single ID and not logging on a single time.
Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure
#174Remember when it was called SINGLE sign on? Emphasis on SINGLE? I mean, this whole idea has been such a mess forever. Why am I prompted to SSO hundreds of times a day?
As far as I've understood/remember SSO was logging on with a single ID and not logging on a single time.
What I remember is that the promise of SSO in the 1990s and early 2000s was that you would login only ONCE, onto your desktop. The operating system would use that login to acquire NTLM or Kerberos tokens, which would then be used to authenticate everything else: shared drives, printers, even web sites would be authenticated using that token (there's a way to pass through your desktop NTLM authentication to a web site, which IME is slightly annoying because it authenticates the connection and not the request, and therefore needs keep-alive HTTPS connections to work correctly).
Of course, that only really works that well in an homogeneous environment, for instance one in which everyone is using a few Windows NT versions on the desktops and all the servers, or one in which both the desktops and servers use the same specific proprietary Unix variant. What instead happened was the rise of heterogeneous systems, which do not share that common authentication mechanism. To make things even worse, each piece of software has its own separate authentication database, often (but not always) a pluggable one which might perhaps be coerced to forward the authentication attempts to another system, instead of directly using the operating system's centralized authentication mechanisms. AFAIK, you can still make it work, but it's a lot of work (for instance, IIRC forwarding NTLM credentials to web servers is disabled by default, and has to be manually enabled and configured to allow a given web server).
Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's even worse if you are accessing Apple services on a non-Apple device. No matter how many times I click "trust device" when logging in to icloud.com it will still make me do the password + one-time code song and dance the next day. Another pointless annoyance - if Face ID fails when making a payment or installing an app (like it frequently does for reasons like sleeping in bed or wearing sunglasses) it won't…
Why in the world does it need you to type a code id you have already accepted it at the other device? This whole flow is stupid, I guess they want to cover their asses.
Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure
#176Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure
#177Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure
#178Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the side of things, the risk of never needing your password is people tend to forget it. Just the other week I was helping someone setup a TV and they thought they didn’t have an Amazon login, because they never needed to login. This was a Prime member. 1Password defaults to having users reauthenticate every 2 weeks. I do find this a bit annoying, but I find the occasional reminder of my password to be a necessity…
It's a good point on password usability. Signal app periodically prompts you for the encryption PIN to make sure you don't forget it. I think this should be handled out of band of the login process. Similar to "is xxx still your phone number?" -- companies could do periodic password hygiene and freshness checks. Context matters. Companies forget that people are trying to get something important done, and blocking the…
At least Signal does not block the app until you enter the PIN. WhatsApp forces you to enter it before you can reach your messages, which not only is annoying when you're in a hurry, but also forces you to type the PIN even when you're in a place where it might be seen by someone else.
On the other hand, on Signal it's possible to leave the warning forever at the bottom of the screen without acknowledging it and typing the PIN, which kind of defeats its purpose.
Re: Frequent reauth doesn't make you more secure
#180I just can't stand email OTP. Before we had passwords, now we have passwords + email OTP. And doesn't matter if you forgot password - you will receive password reset to the same email. You already prove email ownership by resetting or using password - why sending another useless "security token" to the same email. Pure nonsense. Whoever designs all of this clearly has little idea of what they are doing :(