Editing Talk:2522: Two-Factor Security Key

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
This explanation needs a link to the Wikipedia entry for {{w|Security token}}, because that is clearly what Cueball is putting on his keyring here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.24|162.158.203.24]] 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 
This explanation needs a link to the Wikipedia entry for {{w|Security token}}, because that is clearly what Cueball is putting on his keyring here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.24|162.158.203.24]] 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Ouch. The [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2522:_Two-Factor_Security_Key&diff=218697&oldid=218693 Cleanup] and some other lesser pruning was clearly necessary, definitely, but expunged a number of perhaps more interesting key points in the process, that I might have more explicitly made if given a nearly blank sheet. (e.g.: occasional verification by external email is not 'traditional' 2FA, really just 2<sup>nd</sup>F(re-)A but may have become thought of as it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.229|141.101.107.229]] 12:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 
 
Wouldn't it be amazing if we had to use 2FA for important stuff, like voting.  [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 
:Don't give the GOP ideas. Since voter fraud is a negligible problem, it would be amazing if anyone thought 2FA were needed. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 
 
My initial thought was that the joke is that the token isn't actually a fob with a slot for a keyring, and Cueball had to mangle it to install it, possibly rendering it non-functional. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 
 
 
I came to explainxkcd to find out what "proof of work" was.<br />
 
The definition currently given is: "a security term for a concept intended to deter denial of service and similar volume-based attacks".<br />
 
So... "proof of work" is something called a "security term" for a particular concept. And the concept itself, is (somehow) intended to deter "denial of service and similar volume based attacks"... whatever those are...?<br />
 
Remember, I'm just an average person, [[2501: Average Familiarity|I only know the chemical formulas for olivine and one or two feldspars]] and I'm here because I'm dumb. mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.143|172.69.71.143]] 17:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 
 
"from her response probably hasn't yet gotten the joke" - this assumes far more ignorance/stupidity on the part of the character than she ever normally exhibits. To me, XKCD is filled with layered "ironic" speech rather than literals. Her answer "at least now it's secure" makes no sense as a response if she is taking his statement at face value, rather than facetiously responding tongue-in-cheek. But I see this kind of projected-ignorance so often in the explanations here, I'm not even sure if it's worth fixing when I see it. Especially because it feels hard to explain layered speech to people who don't use it, every time it happens :( --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.163|172.69.71.163]] 18:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 
 
I don't really know anything about electronic or cryptography keys, but it seems to me that (1) their use started from the idea of two actual keys to launch nukes or something like in old movies, and (2) that is what Cueball actually installed, but put both one one Keychain making them useless, because they have to be turned simultaneously by two people ten feet apart or whatever, yes? [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 12:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 
 
I really went on a bender as I transplanted the "What kinds of things can be Factors" information out of the Explanation. It's there for those who think they'd like to know more, but I also know I don't know ''everything'' (nor did I render absolutely everything I could), and yet also I'm rather chatty and prosaic and I must apologise for that. (Though, looking at the comment immediately above, darnit, I was going to also mention dual-nuclear-keys as a Two (Semi-Identical) Factor situation.) I also thought there was too much blue (or, rather, visited-link hue) if I was to Wikilink/Nonwikilink absolutely everything I could have. I invite anyone who is bothered to knock it more into shape. Or revert it back, if you feel strongly enough about it yet apathetic enough about getting trying your own version. Otherwise: Enjoy! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.229|141.101.107.229]] 21:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 
 
 
What the hell is "Proof of Work"?? Tried to figure it out from the explanation and I'm still confused. ELI5? --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.211|172.70.126.211]] 14:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: