[ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Consult] Consultation on Expanding 2FA Options for ARIN Online

[Adam Thompson]

Since I have a nearly magical ability to damage every authentication device I've ever been issued (including my phone - this one has lasted over a year, which I think is av record), I'm highly doubtful of any scheme that *assumes* any authenticator is durable.  I would like a *minimum* of 3 active - one in my pocket, one in a locked drawer at work, one in a secure spot at home or in my car or somewhere else.

Double + 1 that number to account for rollover, and I'll already want to have up to 7 registered at times, for any account that's super-critical.

Yes, that's about how many copies of physical keys for locks that I like to get made, because I lose those, too.

Could I live with a limit of 10? Yeah, probably.

Which is more important: keeping bad actors out, or letting authorized users in?

All I'm hearing during this discussion is protecting accounts against hypothetical compromise (with IIRC no evidence this has ever happened, or any negative outcome has occurred previously) with no consideration of people who have unusual needs.

(Some of those needs, definitely not all, are referred to in American law as "disabilities", btw.  I hope someone at ARIN has thought about how the proposed 2FA scheme complies with the ADA?)

-Adam

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: ARIN-consult <arin-consult-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:22:43 PM
To: arin-consult at arin.net <arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Consult] Consultation on Expanding 2FA Options for ARIN Online

On 1/24/23 12:56, Adam Thompson wrote:

Why on earth would you set a hard-coded limit?  It's not like an additional database table is expensive.

While, in general, I understand this sentiment (real world cardinality is usually: 1, 2, or many), I do see two counterpoints. Even speaking in general, it is sometimes useful to define a limit for testing purposes. If you say, "We support 5", then you are hopefully actually testing 5.

In this particular situation, I think the following argument is even more relevant:

On 1/24/23 14:02, Tim Lyons via ARIN-consult wrote:
In terms of allowing the registration of multiple hardware security keys, I suggest allowing a maximum of 3 keys to be registered. This provides backup options in case a user loses or misplaces their primary key but encourages users to be cognizant of deleting old keys that have been lots or become non-functional.

--
Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20230124/ebb301ef/attachment.htm>