Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
No, it isnt.
|
If you value it enough, it is. The protection needs to be proportionate. Your identity in this day and age (online) should be valued. If not for your own sake and protection, then for that of others. World famous art museums will be better protected than your local corner shop. Why? because the content is more valuable. The protection for both will be proportionate to what is being protected.
2FA is free, quick and simple. I'm not sure I completely understand why you are so against it if it is there for your own benefit at no cost to you. I'd like to understand as I might be able to help you here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
Speculation, not a fact.
Banks and now Paypal force annoying 2FA on me, do I get less/no spam emails trying to phish my login ? (The answer is No).
|
Correct - there is no reduction in these at this time because not everyone is using 2FA (as per yourself and many others). This means the shotgunning tactics used by scammers via email will still hit a large number of people (which doesn't even need to be a high proportion of those using a service to be a lot of people), whom are still susceptible and open to falling foul of their efforts to gain access to their accounts. If you read again what I wrote, I did stipulate if
everyone used 2FA, there would be a reduction. If there was zero chance of being able to compromise an account with a password alone, there would be no point in trying to get people's password.
Using your home protection analogy, if the house was completely empty (and we remove any desire for the property itself), then there would be no point in spending time on protecting it. But placing little or no value on your own identity, accounts and anything that is associated to that is not sensible thing. People can easily profit at your expense by using you or your identity as a product or catalyst to gain further assets for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
It would be more secure not to have online banking at all.
Just becasue something is more secure does not make it necessary.
|
If we go back to your analogy about a 20ft wall around your house to protect it, well if you don't want to be burgled, don't live in a building. now that comment seems a little ridiculous because, well... it is. much like your comment about not banking online.
Banking online, like it or not, is here and it is here to stay. it is one of the reasons 2FA / MFA came into existence - to protect it. and it does a bloody good job of it. Remember, it means you need to know something AND have something in your possession to then access your account. So like it or not, 2FA is also here to stay, and that is a good thing. It means we as people, our accounts, identities and our assets are more protected than otherwise they would be.
I hope that all makes sense - forgive me if it doesn't, I will be happy to explain again in other ways.
The bottom line is that no matter what you think of it, 2FA is crucial in this day and age for the information that can be accessed online. It really is that simple. Without 2FA, a lot of systems and service available to us simply would not be able to exist in the form they do presently without a legitimate risk of losing an awful lot - be that information, fiscal assets or whatever. It's because people and companies have lost so much on the past that 2FA came about and it's a very good thing it did.
2FA is not your enemy. it's not going to give away your secrets or sell you out to third parties. That's the job of Facebook et al. 2FA is solely there to protect those individuals and groups that use it. Right now, it is not compulsory to do so. But it may be in the future - it prevents a lot of insurance pay outs because nothing gets stolen in the first place when it is employed. And as we all know, the fiscal world tends to dictate quite a lot, the nature of development within technology.
