- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- bitwarden
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- bitwarden
- [email protected]
Bitwarden users who store their email account credentials within their Bitwarden vaults would have trouble accessing the sent codes if they are unable to log in to their email.
To prevent getting locked out of your vault, be sure you can access the email associated with your Bitwarden account so you can access the emailed codes, or turn on any form of two-step login to not be subject to this process altogether.
That’s what recovery codes are for.
I can’t believe people are arguing about and downvoting this. Especially for a service that holds all of your passwords, it’s the highest priority thing for you to secure.
Me losing my devices is much higher on my threat model than someone trying to brute-force my Bitwarden password.
/1. we’ve covered this already. that’s why recovery codes exist.
/2. losing your device is not a threat to your accounts saved in bitwarden, you’d just have to reset your passwords. it sucks, but that’s not a security threat.
/3. there’s way more than brute-force attacks out there.
This is being purposefully obtuse. Choosing to force users to memorize a recovery code increases the likelihood of lock outs.
There is a real risk of account lockout, especially for those of us who travel frequently. Lockouts are a significant risk when you need to carry all your belongings and devices.
There are also some of us who also think about what happens to us when we are incapacitated and a loved one needs access to our passwords. In a situation, it’s important to balance security vs expediency to access critical information. This new policy disrupts that.
At the very least, I wish Bitwarden would have given us more time to force this policy. I have to scramble to make changes to my estate planning documents and get in contact with my lawyer to change my advanced healthcare directives.
now who’s being purposefully obtuse.
Never underestimate the human capacity for short-sighted laziness.
Sounds like a second password then.
…which you keep in a separate secure location in case you lose your 2FA device.
Why can’t I keep my password in a secure location then?
obviously you do but it can be leaked, phished, or hacked in other ways. a second “factor” such as possession of a token device is a safeguard against that.
you can actually read about all this many places online, it’s nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-factor_authentication
From the wikipedia link you posted:
It also lists more advantages than disadvantages.
yes, that’s the whole point, to recover your account if you lose your MFA device. what are you even trying to say?
edit:
the article lists 3 very important advantages, and 9 relatively small/niche disadvantages (or even irrelevant in the case of SMS). mobile MFA makes sense for the vast majority of people, of course there are always edge cases who it may not work for.
If you can login without the second factor then what’s the point?
We already covered this at the top. You keep the recovery codes unexposed to the internet or obfuscated in some way, unlike your usual password. Therefore you can have confidence that they haven’t been hacked, leaked, or whatever like passwords often are.
anyway I tire of your sea lioning. if you are truly asking good faith questions you can research on your own from here.
shit, why can’t i just keep the secondary password instead of relying on notoriously insecure sms, or notoriously privacy invading email?
why am i forced in some instances to rely on third parties?