First, they restricted code search without logging in so I’m using sourcegraph But now, I cant even view discussions or wiki without logging in.

It was a nice run

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    Oh, API tokens in general, I think are great. As an additional layer of security between “I need my program to be able to access this API” and “I type my password”, they are great. My issue is with the specific way that github has implemented them.

    An API token is more secure than a password by virtue of it not needing to be typed in by a human.

    Remind me. When I create my API token, how do I provide it to git?

    Am I, more or less, forced to save my token to persistent storage in a way I wouldn’t be with a password? I realize that most people store either one in a password manager at this point. My point is, if you’re going to store your password-equivalent in a password manager, how have you achieved greater security as compared with storing a password in the same password manager? How is that not just adding another compromise vector?

    Phishing

    Remind me. Does making a system significantly more complex mean that phishing gets easier? Or harder?

    As an example, if someone can phish my password from me to compromise my security, is that better or worse than if they can either phish my password or else compromise my tokens? I remember this compromise for example, but I can’t remember whether it involved passwords or tokens.

    writing down passwords

    Remind me. Help me understand. Can someone write down their github password if the API token system exists? If they have to use it sometimes to log in to the web site anyway?

    and the fact that API tokens can have restricted scopes

    Yes. API tokens are a good system, in general, and restricting the scope of what they can do and making them time-limited are good reasons why.

    My argument is that, in general, (a) adding an additional point of access to a system without doing anything to disable the existing point of access, and (b) saving a password equivalent to someone’s system instead of having the “standard way” be for them to retype their password to authenticate each session but not have it saved anywhere, are both overall reductions in security.

    I get the motivation that github sometimes protects really critical stuff, and so it needs to be more secure. I am saying that their particular implementation of API tokens led to an overall reduction in security as opposed to an increase.