This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Facebook is in the list, I have turned on 2-step, but not with Google Authenticator, but with SMS to my mobile. I think it should be taken out, as I did not find any instruction on how to use GA. Edoderoo ( talk) 21:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a trend toward more and more online companies enabling two-factor authentication (and especially Google Authenticator). This list could easily be hundreds of services long by the end of this year if it stays comprehensive. Wouldn't it be better to describe the types of services that support Google Authenticator and maybe list a few from each category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramigem ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Google Authenticator which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bcex\.io\b
on the global blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The article claims Google Authenticator implements RFC 6238, however this is untrue and isn't properly cited. The software implements something similar to RFC 6238, however patently isn't compliant with RFC 4226's requirements (required by RFC 6238) due to using an 80-bit shared secret, as detailed here: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/45053/why-does-google-cripple-the-2fa-google-authenticator-pam-module and can been observed at https://github.com/google/google-authenticator/blob/f0d1574734b5855d4a604d58be25fc1159563b66/libpam/google-authenticator.c. According to my own discussions with Google a few years ago when I noticed this myself, this is 'by design'. I'd suggest, unless we can provide a positive non-first party citation for it being compliant with RFC 6238 (true or otherwise), we either remove all reference to it or point out it only claims compliance, rather than actually being compliant. - Rushyo Talk 12:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC) (As an aside, today is my 10th Wikibirthday!) - Rushyo Talk 12:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I ended up clearing the MSB in my code. The StackOverflow example appears to do the same, but the pseudocode makes no mention of it. This would effectively offset some of the tokens by 483648. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.196.23 ( talk) 07:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Aku novijune Luh Putu Novi Juniati ( talk) 06:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The comparison page is incomplete and has no references. Stopcensorshipnow ( talk) 19:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
This section doesn't really belong here, and is full of external links. I don't have the time myself (and lack wide and deep expertise on the topic), but I suggest splitting this article and either creating a new one for Third-party authenticator, which currently redirects to Multi-factor authentication, or a separate section in that article.
lumayan lah google authenticator Lintang hernawati ( talk) 03:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Facebook is in the list, I have turned on 2-step, but not with Google Authenticator, but with SMS to my mobile. I think it should be taken out, as I did not find any instruction on how to use GA. Edoderoo ( talk) 21:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a trend toward more and more online companies enabling two-factor authentication (and especially Google Authenticator). This list could easily be hundreds of services long by the end of this year if it stays comprehensive. Wouldn't it be better to describe the types of services that support Google Authenticator and maybe list a few from each category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramigem ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Google Authenticator which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bcex\.io\b
on the global blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The article claims Google Authenticator implements RFC 6238, however this is untrue and isn't properly cited. The software implements something similar to RFC 6238, however patently isn't compliant with RFC 4226's requirements (required by RFC 6238) due to using an 80-bit shared secret, as detailed here: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/45053/why-does-google-cripple-the-2fa-google-authenticator-pam-module and can been observed at https://github.com/google/google-authenticator/blob/f0d1574734b5855d4a604d58be25fc1159563b66/libpam/google-authenticator.c. According to my own discussions with Google a few years ago when I noticed this myself, this is 'by design'. I'd suggest, unless we can provide a positive non-first party citation for it being compliant with RFC 6238 (true or otherwise), we either remove all reference to it or point out it only claims compliance, rather than actually being compliant. - Rushyo Talk 12:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC) (As an aside, today is my 10th Wikibirthday!) - Rushyo Talk 12:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I ended up clearing the MSB in my code. The StackOverflow example appears to do the same, but the pseudocode makes no mention of it. This would effectively offset some of the tokens by 483648. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.196.23 ( talk) 07:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Aku novijune Luh Putu Novi Juniati ( talk) 06:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The comparison page is incomplete and has no references. Stopcensorshipnow ( talk) 19:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
This section doesn't really belong here, and is full of external links. I don't have the time myself (and lack wide and deep expertise on the topic), but I suggest splitting this article and either creating a new one for Third-party authenticator, which currently redirects to Multi-factor authentication, or a separate section in that article.
lumayan lah google authenticator Lintang hernawati ( talk) 03:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)