Do I use an aliasing service that allows me to change the account emails point to? Yes. Can I access those accounts with access to my email? Yes.
The issue here is that if you lose access to social network that logs you into those things, you lose the account. If you have an actual account, not delegated access, you can still access the account with the social account.
I’m struggling to find some good article examples because Google is rolling out inactive account deletion and that’s polluting my search results. So go test this out yourself: go try to change the account name/email, password, or MFA for any of those accounts you use social auth for. Try figure out how you would log into without that social account. Next do the same thing with an account you don’t use social auth for.
The biggest reason not to use a single account like this is that you lose everything if you lose the owning account. It’s bad advice to say you should absolutely do one or the other. It’s good advice to consider the risks.
Sometimes people genuinely don’t know correct syntax. If you’re going to call that a shortcoming, you’re an ignorant walnut. Intellectual superiority is a shitty way to pretend to be better than someone else. It often incorrectly assumes everyone types the same language with the same proficiency which is a very provincial assumption.
I don’t think we read the same article. We’re talking about a product those goal is secure verification of identity, correct? Something all about security?
Yeah I guess I missed the part where security fundamentals weren’t supposed to be a part of a secure product. Do you mind explaining how a product centered on trust can be developed without trust? I think that would really help me understand why you think repeating the word “beta” allows a security-focused company to sidestep normal foundational components.
Untestable security claims for sensitive information are useless. I’m a huge fan of Proton and I’m excited to test this but only once the blockchain is public. Until then there is no way to verify the trust so there is no trust.
If you disagree, I might have something for you. I’ve got the strongest financial encryption known to man on top of the best transit system ever that makes it super easy to do stuff. It’s all based on blockchain, of course. Just give me your credit card info and bank details. It’s in beta so I won’t let you audit it, but unless you’re shilling you don’t have a problem with that.
It doesn’t matter what the tech is, if you can’t audit it, you can’t trust it.
Also a single private blockchain owner is just a blackbox data store, not a blockchain. I’ve already explained how it’s vulnerable to very simple attacks, much less the complicated attacks that will be thrown at something like this.
You don’t understand basic trust relationships. I don’t really care about your opinion. I already called out that your blind trust in beta software conflicts with my security fundamentals so we’re at an impasse. Once you understand why validation is important or can show why a critical component of trust architecture is somehow not necessary, I’d be happy to be happy to reconsider your opinion.
Your only response to valid criticism about the lack of verification is pointing to the state of development as if that magically washes away all of the criticism. It doesn’t.
While I do have many tinfoil hats, basic fucking trust measures do not require me to pull them out. This is cryptography 101 shit not anything complicated.
Put differently, I’ve got a revolutionary new financial encryption system. It can safely act as the middleware between you and any vendor. You can trust me with your credit card numbers because of my years experience and industry clout. You can’t see my system and I won’t do a PCI audit because it’s in beta. You can totally trust me though.
A fork assumes the old chain continues to exist instead of being completely replaced. Without insight into the chain, which is we can’t have until it’s public, you can’t make any guarantees of immutability.