Re: Untrusted terminals: OPIE vs security/pam_google_authenticator
Dan Langille <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.security.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On Jun 18, 2019, at 9:02 AM, Robert Simmons <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 04:01 Victor Sudakov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> I've used OPIE for many years (and S/Key before that) to login to my >> system from untrusted terminals (cafes, libraries etc). >> >> Now I've read an opinion that OPIE is outdated (and indeed its upstream >> distribution is gone) and that pam_google_authenticator would be more >> secure: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237270 >> >> Is that truly so? With 20 words in OPIE and only 6 digits in >> pam_google_authenticator, how strong is pam_google_authenticator against >> brute force and other attacks? > Victor, > > To throw a new wrinkle in the equation: Google Authenticator codes can be > intercepted by a phishing page. U2F protocol is even better, and can't be > intercepted via phishing. > > There are U2F libraries in ports. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_2nd_Factor > > Cheers, > Rob > If my Google Authenticator codes are on my phone, and I'm entering them into my ssh session, how is a phishing page involved? — Dan Langille http://langille <http://langille/>.org/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"