• snek_boi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    These are not local solutions, but are cross-platform and open source: Bitwarden or Proton Pass.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Doesn’t synced solutions completely defeat the purpose of MFA?

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Not if you protect the master key with MFA, like a yubikey. Then it’s cryptographically secure for quite a while…at least until quantum computing is affordable enough to be used against your data. Or the database and your yubikey and yourbpassphrase are compromised

      • snek_boi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You’ve got a good point. I wonder if this an example of a trade-off between convenience and security. If you’re logging in and you get an MFA prompt, a Yubikey has to be physically searched, while Bitwarden or Proton Pass only have to be clicked. A Yubikey can only hold a limited amount of accounts, while Bitwarden or Proton Pass could hold many more. Of course, a Yubikey could be used as MFA for Bitwarden or Proton Pass, but that would create a single point of failure and reduce factor separation (which I think is your original point).

        While I posted a Bitwarden or Proton Pass recommendation of sorts, I genuinely wonder if it’s advisable to not use MFA at all if the factors will not be separated. Or, perhaps, the best security solution is the one you’ll actually use. I guess the answer is the good ol’ “What’s your security model?”