Federal Judge Makes History: Border Searches of Cell Phones Require Warrants

Re:Federal Judge Makes History: Border Searches of Cell Phon... by kelnos on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @02:50AM (#36135276)

Put more simply/directly: if these people put those credentials on their phones in the first place, they should be embarrassed by their security hygiene. More than embarrassed: possibly fired, or at least have that access taken away until they take a basic infosec awareness course.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Makes History: Border Searches of Cell Phon... by t8sr on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @03:26AM (#36135506)

What are you talking about? Second factor on the phone IS how many companies do 2FA. (Not just ones with poor security, but big tech companies.)

And not for nothing, but a yubikey isn’t exactly protected from border agents either. At least a phone has some legal protections now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Makes History: Border Searches of Cell Phon... by kelnos on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @03:59AM (#36135701)

OP stated that getting access to the phone would have allowed a hacker to compromise the protected systems. A 2FA credential alone shouldn't allow that, so my assumption was that they were storing a full authenticator on the phone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Makes History: Border Searches of Cell Phon... by throwaway290 on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @04:29AM (#36135898)

steal password + seize the phone to get 2 factor token = compromise.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Makes History: Border Searches of Cell Phon... by tinus_hn on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @07:17PM (#36145769)

It’s not really two factor authentication if the claim is the phone also contains the passwords, the first factor.

[ Parent | on HN ]