Talk:2522: Two-Factor Security Key - Revision history

MeZimm at 17:03, 7 March 2025

2025-03-07T17:03:43Z

MeZimm at 17:02, 7 March 2025

2025-03-07T17:02:19Z

172.70.126.211 at 14:42, 8 November 2021

2021-11-08T14:42:49Z

141.101.107.229 at 21:32, 2 October 2021

2021-10-02T21:32:27Z

141.101.107.229 at 21:30, 2 October 2021

2021-10-02T21:30:52Z

Mathmannix at 12:04, 2 October 2021

2021-10-02T12:04:41Z

172.69.71.163: Layered speech.

2021-10-01T18:43:53Z

Layered speech.

172.69.71.143 at 17:00, 1 October 2021

2021-10-01T17:00:13Z

Barmar at 13:51, 1 October 2021

2021-10-01T13:51:58Z

Seebert at 13:28, 1 October 2021

2021-10-01T13:28:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 7 March 2025
Line 37:		Line 37:


−	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)	+	What the hell is "Proof of Work"?? Tried to figure it out from the explanation and I'm still confused. ELI5? [[User:MeZimm\|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm\|talk]]) 14:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 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)
+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. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 8 November 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:

	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)		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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:32, 2 October 2021
Line 34:		Line 34:
	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 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 ~~known~~ I don't know ''everything'', and also I'm rather chatty and prosaic. (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)	+	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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 2 October 2021
Line 33:		Line 33:

	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 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 known I don't know ''everything'', and also I'm rather chatty and prosaic. (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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 2 October 2021
Line 31:		Line 31:

	"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)		"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)

@@ 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)
 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)
@@ Line 30: / Line 29: @@
 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 1 October 2021
Line 24:		Line 24:

	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)		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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:51, 1 October 2021
Line 21:		Line 21:

	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)		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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:28, 1 October 2021
Line 19:		Line 19:

	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)		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)