Original post: infosec.exchange (glitch-soc (Mastodon fork))

BeyondMachines ( @beyondmachines1@infosec.exchange: "#VibeCoding your MFA". Attached image: a two-factor authentication screen that says "We have just sent the code 435841 to your phone number: xxx-xxx-8247. Please enter the code below to access your account:"
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Even if it didn't outright display the code you need to enter, my guess is this and similar implementations hide further vulnerabilities like: the numbers aren't generated with a secure random number generator, or the validation call isn't resistant to simple brute force quickly guessing every possible number, or the number is known client side for validation, etc.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    what if 435841 is the most secure 6 digit numerical code?

    why use another?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I use the random number 4, I even rolled a dice to get a real random number instead of those "pseudo" random numbers. (XKCD?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This goes back even further, Randall is referencing the ps3 security, that has a constant instead of a random number. That allowed failOverflow to remove one variable and reverse the private key to sign ps3 apps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment