Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reason why it is not recommended requiring a second factor during reauthentication? #9

Open
ankoro73 opened this issue Jul 17, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@ankoro73
Copy link

12 We do not recommend that relying parties require a second factor during reauthentication. Instead, you should see whether the user's platform features a user-verifying FIDO platform authenticator, and employ it, making reauthentication more user-friendly without sacrificing security.

Why "We do not recommend that relying parties require a second factor during reauthentication"?
I think you should explain the reason why you make this recommendation.

@sbweeden
Copy link
Contributor

I find that the current text self-explains why the recommendation is made. When a user-verifying platform authenticator is employed for reauthentication, the user experience is user-friendly without sacrificing security. If you have a suggested re-word, could you please submit a PR. If after re-reading the above explanation you think that a re-word is not necessary, perhaps close the issue?

@maxhata
Copy link

maxhata commented Nov 1, 2020

Once they register a roaming authenticator, users can now secure their bootstrap sign-ins by using this authenticator as a 2nd-factor during sign-in.[12]

[12] We do not recommend that relying parties require a second factor during reauthentication. Instead, you should see whether the user's platform features a user-verifying FIDO platform authenticator, and employ it, making reauthentication more user-friendly without sacrificing security.

It is still not clear to me what "We do not recommend that relying parties require a second factor during reauthentication." wants to say.

Does it want to say "We do not recommend that relying parties require a second factor during reauthentication using the roaming authenticator"?

So does it want to recommend to use UVPA instead of the UVRA if UVPA is available for better usability?

@christiaanbrand
Copy link

It's more generic than that: We mean to say - relying parties shouldn't ask for a fingerprint during reauthentication, and then also go on to ask for other types of second factors (like SMS OTP 2-FA, etc). A FIDO authentication should be enough to satisfy both the physical possession and user verification factors.

@maxhata
Copy link

maxhata commented Nov 6, 2020

#24

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants