Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

assurance - RE: [Assurance] silver and two-factor ...

Subject: Assurance

List archive

RE: [Assurance] silver and two-factor ...


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Caskey, Paul" <>
  • To: "" <>
  • Subject: RE: [Assurance] silver and two-factor ...
  • Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:55:20 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: ironport160a.utsystem.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none

IMHO, and as someone said on a list a week or two ago, there is no such thing
as a strong password when all an attacker has to do is ask a user for their
password and, all too often, get it. So, for us, that's why we are looking
at 2 factor.

That said, I'm sure someone is already working on a new crafty spam mail
"Please mail me your 2nd factor token and PIN and I will then wire you $10
million from this Nigerian prince...". :)




> -----Original Message-----
> From:
>
> [
> ]
> On Behalf Of Steven Carmody
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:48 AM
> To:
>
> Subject: [Assurance] silver and two-factor ...
>
> I'm wondering why so many sites that are interested in Silver are so
> interested in two-factor....
>
> I haven't looked at the Silver profile in a long time. But, my memory is
> that
> strong passwords, stored sufficiently securely, and not replicated into
> uncontrolled environments (eg google), would pass muster with Silver. I'm
> assuming, of course, that the other Silver criteria (eg around identity
> proofing, account claiming, etc) would also be met.
>
> I can imagine that there may be issues with those passwords passing through
> a variety of systems (eg systems that are then authenticating users against
> a
> central ldap, for instance). But, that's just a guess -- I would be
> interested in
> hearing about specific concerns that are driving sites toward two-factor.
>
> Thanks for any light you can shine on this!



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page