• Jul (they/she)@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t understand what you mean by “keys” here. Nothing in encrypted. You generate codes by initiating the login process.

    The way TOTP works is there is a key (usually in the form of a QR code) for TOTP apps. That key is stored in your TOTP app locally, but also often stored I’m the cloud of you use Google’s app. Codes are generated using that key and the current timestamp. Otherwise a valid code can’t be generated.

    There is no encryption in SMS…

    The messages aren’t encrypted at rest but, the connections are. You need a key in the physical sim card to intercept anything. You can’t just intercept and duplicate a sim card’s identifier like with 2G. No casual hacker is going to hack LTE or newer technologies, only professionals like governments and government backed spy agencies. Not saying it’s as secure as OT should be, but the effort and cost is not worth it most of the time.

    And sim swap only works if you also have the person’s username and password for 2fa. For the issue mentioned in the article it does work because you dont need any knowledge or other factor other than the message itself to login. Single factor logins with not even needing to have a username, much less a password, are obviously going to be an issue, which is why I’m emphasizing, I’m interested in 2FA like a bank might use, not the issue mentioned in the article which is totally different.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The way TOTP works

      Okay I thought you were still talking about SMS.

      The messages aren’t encrypted at rest but, the connections are. You need a key in the physical sim card to intercept anything

      No you do not. Most phones don’t even have this anymore.

      And sim swap only works if you also have the person’s username and password for 2fa

      Yes, and for the 3rd time, all the same vulnerabilities exist in MFA.

      • Jul (they/she)@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I was talking about sms. All types of cryptographic code generation uses one or more keys. The sms type just uses one that only the sender holds, it’s never shared with anyone which can cause it to be more easily lost.

        The sim cards and their cryptographic keys are just built into the phones, and the codes are swapped when you sign up, same concept as renovable sim cards.

        And again, it doesn’t matter of a sms code is intercepted as much as the entire login method. If you dont have the username and password, what good does an sms code do for anything? The issue in the article is that there’s nothing else to know, just the current format of the set of codes being generated by the system. Then you can randomly guess a similar code and get access to a random person’s account. Much, much different from the use MFA which is worthless without ALL of the factors, not just a single one.

        • artyom@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          If you dont have the username and password, what good does an sms code do for anything?

          The entire point of MFA is to protect against someone who does have your username and password…

          • Jul (they/she)@piefed.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Exactly, so it does that job because it requires an entirely different and complex skill-set to intercept sms messages and you have to do both things now if sms 2FA is in place. With the issue in the article you dont even need to intercept sms meant for a particular user to get access to random users’ accounts, thus totally different issue.

            I asked, what is better for a second factor than SMS?

            • artyom@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              so it does that job

              It does, really poorly, for the reasons I’ve listed, and for the reasons in the OP.

              With the issue in the article you dont even need to intercept sms meant for a particular user to get access to random users’ accounts, thus totally different issue.

              Not a different issue at all. Exact same issue, with lower risk.

              I asked, what is better for a second factor than SMS?

              I answered this like 12 comments ago.

              We’re going around in circles now so I’ll bid you good night.