The second factor is the app on your phone. It‘s not Totp. When you log in somewhere or make a transaction it will send a notification to the app asking you to confirm.

When you open the bank account you get a letter with a code to register in the app, which authorizes it to receive the notification.

I don‘t know where you are from, but the EU requires banks to use 2FA for login even via a browser. This is commonly implemented via a banking app, where you grant permissions for login/payments. So it is a huge dealbraker when those apps are not working on GrapheneOs

And before anyone goes blaming the EU as it‘s fashionable right now: mandatory 2FA for banks is a good idea, this is entirely Googles and the banks fault.

Like others have mentioned, change your provider. Prices are going down again, as there have been advancements on installing renewables. Energy prices at the end of 2024 were 30,5% cheaper than at the start of 2023 (Source. This is the case even though we are paying more for the modernization of the grid, because renewables are that much cheaper than other sources.

It‘s coming along in Thunderbird, they continuously mention it in their monthly development blog.

Exchange Web Services support in Rust

November saw an increase in the number of team members contributing to the project and to the number of features shipped! Users on our Daily release channel can help to test newly-released features such as copy and move messages from EWS to another protocol, marking a message as read/unread, and local storage functionality. Keep track of feature delivery here.

If you aren’t already using Daily or Beta, please consider downloading to get early access to new features and fixes, and to help us uncover issues early.

On iOS you can enable Guided Access and restrict what one can do, for example disable touch and lock it to an app, until you enter a Code. I imagine Android will have something similar.

This obviously doesn’t protect against electronic forensics, but it does protect against just opening different apps and searching through the phone manually.

This is an important issue IMO that needs to be addressed and the official response by Bitwardens CTO fails to do so.

There is not even a reason provided why such a proprietary license is deemed necessary for the SDK. Furthermore this wasn’t proactively communicated but noticed by users. The locking of the Github Issue indicates that discussion isn’t desired and further communication is not to be expected.

It is a step in the wrong direction after having accepted Venture Capital funding, which already put Bitwardens opensource future in doubt for many users.

This is another step in the wrong direction for a company that proudly uses the opensource slogan.

The problem with passkeys is that they’re essentially a halfway house to a password manager, but tied to a specific platform in ways that aren’t obvious to a user at all, and liable to easily leave them unable to access of their accounts.

Agreed, in its current state I wouldn‘t teach someone less technically inclined to solely rely on passkeys saved by the default platform if you plan on using different devices, it just leads to trouble.

If you’re going to teach someone how to deal with all of this, and all the potential pitfalls that might lock them out of your service, you almost might as well teach them how to use a cross-platform password manager

Using a password manager is still the solution. Pick one where your passkeys can be safed and most of the authors problems are solved.

The only thing that remains is how to log in if you are not on a device you own (and don’t have the password manager). The author mentions it: the QR code approach for cross device sign in. I don’t think it’s cumbersome, i think it’s actually a great and foolproof way to sign in. I have yet to find a website which implements it though (Edit: Might be my specific setup‘s fault).

The author of your blog post comes to this conclusion:

So do yourself a favour. Get something like bitwarden or if you like self hosting get vaultwarden. Let it generate your passwords and manage them. If you really want passkeys, put them in a password manager you control. But don’t use a platform controlled passkey store, and be very careful with security keys.

The protocol (CXP) which the article is about, would allow you to export the passkeys from the “platform controlled passkey store” and import them into e.g. Bitwarden. So i would imagine the author being in favor of the protocol.

The lock-in effect of passkeys is something that this protocol aims to solve though. The “only managed by your device” is what keeps us locked in, if there is no solution to export and import it on another device.

The protocol aims to make it easy to import and export passkeys so you can switch to a different provider. This way you won’t be stuck if you create passkeys e.g. on an Apple device and want to switch to e.g. Bitwarden or an offline password manager like KeyPassXC

The specifications are significant for a few reasons. CXP was created for passkeys and is meant to address a longstanding criticism that passkeys could contribute to user lock-in by making it prohibitively difficult for people to move between operating system vendors and types of devices. […] CXP aims to standardize the technical process for securely transferring them between platforms so users are free […].

Seems like people in the comments are misunderstaning the announcement entirely. This protocol is about import and export from password managers and not about having them synced between devices. It would prevent a lock in effect. This is a great development!

FIDO Alliance’s draft specifications – Credential Exchange Protocol (CXP) and Credential Exchange Format (CXF) – define a standard format for transferring credentials in a credential manager including passwords, passkeys and more to another provider in a manner that ensures transfer are not made in the clear and are secure by default.

Misinformation is the inadvertent spread of false information without intent to harm, while disinformation is false information designed to mislead others and is deliberately spread with the intent to confuse fact and fiction. Source

This is more than a simple mistake and I am right to call it misinformation. I appreciate that you seem open to discussion about you being wrong. Nevertheless your post is still not edited to correct the proven wrong statements. You can use strikethrough so no context is lost, like I did in the comment you are replying to, where I was wrong.

You made a post with huge claims, basically saying that signal is unsecure and messages can be read by the goverment. This is such a big claim that it should have been researched by you beforehand and you should have provided sources. You don’t get to hide behind “discussions” because in a discussion you actually provide sources if you make claims. Especially if you are trying to start one, to give the readers a chance to read up on the topic.

You “getting a detail wrong“ has a huge impact. Some people will stumble upon this post, read that signal is supposedly insecure and might believe it and even spread that. It hurts the adoption of a secure encrypted messenger. It is not a small detail, but the foundation of your whole post.

And I am mostly right, I just seem to have been wrong on the detail about Signal push notifications. […] This comes from the DOJ senator Wyden saying these corporations can secretly share this data with governments and can include the unencrypted text which is displayed in the notification.

No, you are mostly wrong about the claims you make! Again your post made the connection to signal. Push notifications for Signal NEVER contain sensitive unencrypted data & do not reveal the contents of any Signal messages or calls–not to Apple, not to Google, not to anyone but you & the people you’re talking to. Source

“spreading misinformation” is a phrase mostly used by feds when they see something they consider to be “wrong think” or not “politically correct”. They use this anti-misinformation campaign to support their censorship and mass surveillance system.

I don‘t appreciate you, trying to frame my correction of your blatant misinformation as trying to censor you. Don‘t try to play the victim.

You are just spreading misinformation! Cite your sources!

There is a strategy used, which allows the government to find out who an account belongs to. They ask the push providers (Apple/Google) for data on the push token from e.g. a messaging app. This way they associate the account from an app with an identity.

Nothing there about message content. It is still safely E2EE.

I don’t know how it works in your country, but in mine, phone numbers are already associated with identities, so nothing gained as the gov can just ask signal for the phone number of an account, instead of having to ask signal and the push provider to get the identity. (Edit: apparently it’s hashed, so there seems to be a use for this.) Signal isn’t about Anonymity but Privacy. There is a difference.

If you have another vulnerability cite it!