| ▲ | bradlys 2 hours ago | |
It’s not ridiculous. It’s for you to verify. It’s setting up 2FA. How can you not understand that? | ||
| ▲ | ryandrake 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
2FA presumes user-ownership of the second factor, and that possession of the second factor authenticates that the possessor is the account owner. It's ridiculous because in the OP's case, he literally had someone else temporarily hand him the second factor in front of the clerk: the 2FA didn't really authenticate anything, and the clerk could even see that. | ||
| ▲ | kube-system an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Even if it was useful in OPs case -- which it wasn't -- SMS 2FA is frowned upon by all modern security standards because it has several severe security issues. | ||