by snikch on 5/24/23, 4:00 AM with 4 comments
> I’ll address your concerns.
>We want sessions to time out. This is a security measure we implemented so if a machine is left unattended or stolen no one can just open something and be logged in.
> Yes, the method has changed for the authenticator. Its another layer Microsoft has pushed entering the number now.
> We cannot roll back these changes.
> If you are authenticating multiple times a day it’s a good thing, as frustrating as it may seem that is the security working - it keeps you, the data, the company safe. If it helps on average, I authenticate 25 to 30 times a day.
> Hope this lessens the frustration, if we could and the internet was a safer place we wouldn’t have to these protocols in place.
by pledess on 5/24/23, 5:56 AM
There's a substantial amount of research data related (not always directly) to this, e.g., the "Interruptibility of Software Developers" paper from the 2015 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2702123.2702593
https://www.zora.uzh.ch/110157/1/ZuegerFritz-Interruptibilit...
I don't know of a case where distractions from Microsoft SSO login prompts (specifically) were correlated with a higher rate of bugs, such as security bugs. I have heard of one case where a "zero trust" rollout was discontinued because re-authenticating was interfering with development (higher defect rate, but also developers not staying "in the zone" and losing productivity).
by bityard on 5/24/23, 5:26 AM
There is really no way you are going to convince anyone in the company to change these policies. They are already not listening to reason. If this is really the worst part of working for this company, I would say let it go because you're doing far better than average. But if the whole workday is filled with crap like this that prevents you from getting any real work done, then maybe it's time to start looking around.
by destroy-2A on 5/24/23, 7:34 AM
by ftxbro on 5/24/23, 4:03 AM