by fapi1974 on 4/16/21, 6:59 PM with 97 comments
by minitech on 4/16/21, 7:33 PM
> To make it more difficult to brute force, when generating the humanID Account ID, we will concatenate the phone number with a Salt Key (another string that will be appended before the hash).
> sha512hash ( Salt_Key + Phone Number ) = Hash Result
This is a complete joke (a SHA-512 of a phone number can be brute-forced on a typical computer in a fraction of a second). I doubt the rest of the protocols and cryptography are any better.
Also, phone numbers are not unique identifiers for people. Real people, malicious or not, have multiple or no phone numbers (or phone numbers that can’t receive SMS). I haven’t found a clear answer yet as to whether SMS verification is the only proof step but it seems like that’s the case.
by tootie on 4/16/21, 7:31 PM
But either way, the diagram says they're hashing phone numbers, so presumably that means they authenticate by typing in their phone number which is a terribly password since you give you phone number out to people so they must also send a TOTP via SMS which is better, but not great. NIST has started recommending not to use SMS for out-of-band authentication. Either way, this whole chain of events just delegates authentication your mobile carrier. Same thing if you send a TOTP to an email address. It feels more seamless, but really you're just delegating auth to their email provider. No different that using OAuth.
by dang on 4/17/21, 1:11 AM
"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
by fundamental on 4/16/21, 7:16 PM
So, to me it looks like marketing hype without substance. It would be useful for the site to be online and not giving 500 errors though to see if they had anything else.
by wideareanetwork on 4/16/21, 7:31 PM
I once implemented a non standard signin where all that was needed was an email link which kept you signed in.
Users hated it.
They actually went to the trouble of complaining and no doubt it lost me potential signups.
These days I only ever do normal email and password signup.
by freeopinion on 4/16/21, 8:39 PM
I refuse to use sites that require 3rd-party auth. If I have a problem logging in to your site, I want to reach out to you and get it resolved. I don't want you to say, "We don't have any ability to address auth issues on our own site. Take it up with <completely unrelated site>." I don't want my account with you to be suspended because I had a falling out with Facebook or Google or anybody else that is not you.
by nvartolomei on 4/16/21, 7:08 PM
by aww_dang on 4/17/21, 7:14 AM
>Our Vision: One Digital Identity per Human – both Anonymous and Accountable...billions of fake user accounts undermining our societies.
by arkitaip on 4/16/21, 7:16 PM
by kwhitefoot on 4/17/21, 6:57 AM
Why would I want to use something that allowed me only one identity?
And if I have to give away my mobile number it is hardly one-click.
And a lot of the stuff that other comments have mentioned!
by kevincox on 4/16/21, 8:24 PM
So already I won't use it because I don't want to authenticate via SMS. It also raises the immediate question of what happens when I change my phone number?
But why should I trust this website more than your website? Unless your website is fully zero-trust it is probably better to trust you to throw away my phone number than handing my phone number to this company and other data to your company.
by leshokunin on 4/16/21, 7:04 PM
by ANEDI on 4/17/21, 10:20 AM
Prove you are human with validation as public turing test done on blockchain. There is simple one click login and it's used now on Gitcoin.
Website: https://www.idena.io/
by Groxx on 4/16/21, 7:26 PM
... color me suspicious. I'd read the technical details, but I can't seem to find any through the wayback archive.
by RileyJames on 4/17/21, 4:04 AM
Minimum viable user & social features.
by ksm1717 on 4/16/21, 7:22 PM
by bastianpurrer on 4/17/21, 5:35 PM
Also, to be clear, while the site was down for an hour, the login never was, as we have set that up independently from the site.
by godelski on 4/16/21, 7:35 PM
by johnhess on 4/16/21, 7:13 PM
by iou on 4/17/21, 6:42 AM
by ChrisArchitect on 4/17/21, 10:50 PM
by supergirl on 4/17/21, 12:37 PM
by avipars on 4/16/21, 7:16 PM
by endisneigh on 4/16/21, 7:30 PM
My personal feelings, that aside, is that though many of us are privacy conscious, adding more and more dependencies to your site results in us having to trust more entities. Even if they don't store anything, we have to trust they aren't lying, that redirection is implemented properly, etc.
I think the best thing you can do if you care about the privacy of your users is minimize the amount of information necessary. So if your site doesn't require email, don't take it. If a phone number isn't necessary, don't ask for it. Use usernames, only ask for an email when the user is doing something that would require it (e.g. they need a receipt).
One thing that I love is when a site actually gives you a temporary username the minute you visit the "app" portion and you can use the site as if you created an account without having to do anything. That's usually a sign that the administrators really do care about you not jumping through hoops.