this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
28 points (100.0% liked)
Open Source
31277 readers
273 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can't wrap my head around how this is a good idea. Isn't the idea of mfa to protect against password theft? If your second factor is stored with your password, how does that help anything? Honest question, I see this everywhere but can't figure out why it's acceptable with security-minded folks
Yeah fair question. IMO it def makes things less secure, but it's a question of how much less?
As in, if all my passwords are "sexG0d" then 2fa is critically important, but if all my passwords are long and complex and unique then 2fa is still another layer but it's much less critical.
If someone were to pinch a password through a phishing site or a key logger they would still need to unlock your .kbdx file. The way I see it, if an attacker has cracked your database, you already screwed up 20 steps ago. (Sharing your .kbdx, using a weak password for it, not changing your other passwords) I think that 2FA on a different device is too much of a hassle for how much extra security it can bring.
Late reply, but for me personally, I started doing it because my Keepass database is already accessed using two factors (password and key file). Therefore, I'd gain very little by keeping the second factor of those sites external - essentially, those second factors are compounded into the second factor for the database.