-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Reason why it is not recommended requiring a second factor during reauthentication? #9
Comments
I find that the current text self-explains why the recommendation is made. When a user-verifying platform authenticator is employed for reauthentication, the user experience is user-friendly without sacrificing security. If you have a suggested re-word, could you please submit a PR. If after re-reading the above explanation you think that a re-word is not necessary, perhaps close the issue? |
It is still not clear to me what "We do not recommend that relying parties require a second factor during reauthentication." wants to say. Does it want to say "We do not recommend that relying parties require a second factor during reauthentication using the roaming authenticator"? So does it want to recommend to use UVPA instead of the UVRA if UVPA is available for better usability? |
It's more generic than that: We mean to say - relying parties shouldn't ask for a fingerprint during reauthentication, and then also go on to ask for other types of second factors (like SMS OTP 2-FA, etc). A FIDO authentication should be enough to satisfy both the physical possession and user verification factors. |
Why "We do not recommend that relying parties require a second factor during reauthentication"?
I think you should explain the reason why you make this recommendation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: