Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

news.ycombinator.com

81–90 of 198 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

#81
Because when I want to login I WANT to login - It's amazing how much it's spend on shaving milliseconds yet having such an indirection doesn't ring a bell as a problem.

Also, having such a critical part of your system depend on email delivery and access? Looking at most frontend development practices I understand the blindside/YOLO attitude these days but it's still a bad idea anytime of the day.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

#82

We have tried this for a while and the following reasons made us kill it: 1. Email delivery latency: depending on the service you use, the time it takes to deliver emails to the user can vary. Worst case I encountered was up to 20 minutes delay when there were issues with Mailgun. 2. Usability: you have to leave your current app and switch to your mail client. You may be on a device where you don't have a mail client…

If I may add:

4. Some email clients still break links in emails

5. Proper links require HTML; otherwise you rely on the email client recognizing a URL as such (which brings us back to 4).

6. The email might mistakenly get recognized as spam.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

#83

We have tried this for a while and the following reasons made us kill it: 1. Email delivery latency: depending on the service you use, the time it takes to deliver emails to the user can vary. Worst case I encountered was up to 20 minutes delay when there were issues with Mailgun. 2. Usability: you have to leave your current app and switch to your mail client. You may be on a device where you don't have a mail client…

> 1. Email delivery latency

This is particularly true when the recipient has enabled Greylisting[0] and delivery has to be attempted multiple times (which is perfectly fine from the point of view of the RFC standards). In view of this, email delivery rather resembles real-world postal package delivery (and not so much the instantaneous delivery of, say, phone calls).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greylisting_(email)

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

#84
I know a guy who as a matter of course sets his passwords to long random strings. When he wants to log into something, he then uses the sites’ “forgot password” as his “OTP” to assign a new one, log in with it. He does not store the random string, so his password is random, he doesn’t know it. Sounds like a lot of trouble, but my point is “forgot password” can kinda be otp for those paranoid enough.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

#85
post #42

We have tried this for a while and the following reasons made us kill it: 1. Email delivery latency: depending on the service you use, the time it takes to deliver emails to the user can vary. Worst case I encountered was up to 20 minutes delay when there were issues with Mailgun. 2. Usability: you have to leave your current app and switch to your mail client. You may be on a device where you don't have a mail client…

>sign up/sign in Why were clear terms like login/register/logout replaced with a “sign ...”? I get confused twice a week by these, especially because the difference between “in” and “up” is so subtle (and overloaded, like “sign up for a meeting at friday”, unrelated to registration routine). Sorry for offtopic, but it is really annoying. Is it more linguistically correct or just a hipster thing?

I usually prefer the terms "sign up" and "log in" as they are different enough to avoid confusion.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

#86
post #42

We have tried this for a while and the following reasons made us kill it: 1. Email delivery latency: depending on the service you use, the time it takes to deliver emails to the user can vary. Worst case I encountered was up to 20 minutes delay when there were issues with Mailgun. 2. Usability: you have to leave your current app and switch to your mail client. You may be on a device where you don't have a mail client…

>sign up/sign in Why were clear terms like login/register/logout replaced with a “sign ...”? I get confused twice a week by these, especially because the difference between “in” and “up” is so subtle (and overloaded, like “sign up for a meeting at friday”, unrelated to registration routine). Sorry for offtopic, but it is really annoying. Is it more linguistically correct or just a hipster thing?

I researched this several years ago and for various reasons it's best to use: sign up, log in, and log out.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

#87
I used to add this functionality to all my projects, as it’s much better not to have a password. Now I don’t like it at all. It’s very inconvenient to have to switch to your email when you could just auto-fill with your password manager.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

#88
I think it depends on what the sits is for and how cookies are handled.

If your login mechanism sets a cookie after they verify the link then they can continue to be logged in for 3 months or however long you want. This is similar to what you would do with a password.

Also the site type and your audience makes a big difference. I wouldn't do it on a site where folks aren't technical.

But for example what about an ecommerce site where customers need to register an account + put in credit card details to place an order and then they get access to digital goods?

In the above case the lack of password is a benefit because it simplifies the payment form. Now they only need to put in an email address + card details.

And for getting access to what they purchased a slight delay isn't the end of the world. You could even give them access to it immediately in some type of unverified way (limited features until they verify). Also it's a slight deterrent for account sharing.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

#89
Besides what many others have said, I'll add that many low-end Android phones are likely to kill your app when the user leaves it to go check their email. Which is fine, you can handle it, but many apps add a flow like this and aren't ready to be killed in the middle of their sign-in flow because this never happens on an emulator or a high-end test device.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?

#90
post #89

Besides what many others have said, I'll add that many low-end Android phones are likely to kill your app when the user leaves it to go check their email. Which is fine, you can handle it, but many apps add a flow like this and aren't ready to be killed in the middle of their sign-in flow because this never happens on an emulator or a high-end test device.

This. Same happens with the sms verifcation in microsoft teams. On older devices switching to the sms app will restart the teams authentication process. So you have no chance in every typing the correct 2 factor sms key.
Post reply on HN