Godfrey
somewhat colored
I use 2factor authentication on any site that requires it. It is indeed a pain in the butt, but if required so be it.
If I don't value a particular site, well, who cares? I stop using the site.
I've never 'turned on' 2factor authentication as an option... I wait for a site to require it because that usually indicates that the site has been properly vetted by the owner/administrator and its operations team to use the authentication scheme properly, and that the authentication scheme usually works properly due to the maintenance and testing that has been applied.
I've also never used an authentication scheme that requires I have an account on some OTHER site to pass the authentication credentials through. To me, that's just begging for trouble as it mean at least two more points of entry for a credentials to be falsified/faked/rendered inoperative ... or stolen.
I don't consider myself to be any wiz at computer or network security. I know the basics, and I do what seems required as long as it doesn't seem ridiculous or fraught with more complexity/risk than is required.
What this is saying, in essence, is that when RangeFinder Forum has fully emplaced and vetted 2factor authentication such that it is a well-supported and known quantity for the site owner and the admin team to deal with, and requires it, then I'll simply do what I must to incorporate its use into my daily knocking about here because I do value this forum. 🙂 E.G.: when Apple put it in place, when my bank put it in place, when the US Social Security Administration and the California Department of Motor Vehicles put it in place (never mind Ebay and Paypal et al), I of course accepted it and follow the instructions for use. And when it or I screw up in using it, I contact those agencies and get assistance to make things work correctly.
G
If I don't value a particular site, well, who cares? I stop using the site.
I've never 'turned on' 2factor authentication as an option... I wait for a site to require it because that usually indicates that the site has been properly vetted by the owner/administrator and its operations team to use the authentication scheme properly, and that the authentication scheme usually works properly due to the maintenance and testing that has been applied.
I've also never used an authentication scheme that requires I have an account on some OTHER site to pass the authentication credentials through. To me, that's just begging for trouble as it mean at least two more points of entry for a credentials to be falsified/faked/rendered inoperative ... or stolen.
I don't consider myself to be any wiz at computer or network security. I know the basics, and I do what seems required as long as it doesn't seem ridiculous or fraught with more complexity/risk than is required.
What this is saying, in essence, is that when RangeFinder Forum has fully emplaced and vetted 2factor authentication such that it is a well-supported and known quantity for the site owner and the admin team to deal with, and requires it, then I'll simply do what I must to incorporate its use into my daily knocking about here because I do value this forum. 🙂 E.G.: when Apple put it in place, when my bank put it in place, when the US Social Security Administration and the California Department of Motor Vehicles put it in place (never mind Ebay and Paypal et al), I of course accepted it and follow the instructions for use. And when it or I screw up in using it, I contact those agencies and get assistance to make things work correctly.
G