Asklemmy

43755 readers

1216 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

207

Can I refuse MS Authenticator? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 5 months ago by Martin@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

264 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So my company decided to migrate office suite and email etc to Microsoft365. Whatever. But for 2FA login they decided to disable the option to choose "any authenticator" and force Microsoft Authenticator on the (private) phones of both employees and volunteers. Is there any valid reason why they would do this, like it's demonstrably safer? Or is this a battle I can pick to shield myself a little from MS?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] tdgoodman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Many work places require employees to bring their own tools (eg auto mechanic). Requiring a phone or tablet is probably legal.

[–] thesystemisdown@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I think if that's the case, I'd get an inexpensive phone with a prepaid plan... and make it clear that it gets turned off if not on call or otherwise pre-arranged.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

This is what it's heading to eventually. This "authentication using a personal device that the IT department can't control" crap will eventually evolve into "they must control the device". Which means they just need to quit being cheap and buy devices they can manage for this purpose.

[–] IIII@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Or leave it in the office, always on charge, and with no lock screen so anyone can take the phone and accept a request

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That sounds like a terrible security practice but at least it only puts your company at risk

[–] sleep_deprived@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

That's the point. Malicious compliance.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

The app will enforce a lock screen.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That sounds like a terrible security practice but at least it only puts your company at risk

[–] itsralC@lemm.ee 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You should get your lemmy checked for dementia

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 2 points 5 months ago

I think my instance is having an issue

[–] Catsrules@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

No need for a prepaid plan I haven't used the MS authentication but almost all 2FA apps actually don't need Internet access (apart from the initial setup). I would just graph some old phone and connect it to WiFi.

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago

Depends on jurisdiction.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 3 points 5 months ago

In the US