[members-discuss] Webauthn
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Webauthn
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Webauthn
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tyrasuki
tyrasuki at pm.me
Fri Oct 2 13:15:42 CEST 2020
Hi Bogdan, \+1 for this idea from me. I use my physical key wherever possible, and find it a good idea to have the option there for anyone who has them. Best regards, Jori Vanneste Junior Network Engineer Openfactory GmbH - AS58299 \+32 460 24 25 26 \-------- Original Message -------- On Oct 2, 2020, 02:18, Bogdan I. < admin at redcluster.net> wrote: > > > > Hello > > What would be your opinion of implementing Webauthn / U2F by security > keys for the RIPE NCC website's two factor authentication, in addition > to the current TOTP system? > > The current TOTP based system works fine, but i find using a physical > security key to be more convenient and more secure. > > \-- > Bogdan Ionescu > Redcluster LTD > > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tyrasuki%40pm.me > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20201002/fd6fa51b/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 839 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20201002/fd6fa51b/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Webauthn
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Webauthn
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]