(no title)
runbyfruity | 5 years ago
2. If someone has access to your email, you're screwed anyway because they can lock you out and reset every password.
Your email password, effectively, becomes the password for that website. I.e. security-wise, I think they're equivalent.
ikiris|5 years ago
garmaine|5 years ago
Every single one of them. Email is a plain text protocol.
tialaramex|5 years ago
There are three components worth looking at. Each of them is popularly secured with TLS.
Firstly, submission, sending an email you just wrote from your client to a server. This is usually done over a specifically TLS-secured "SMTP submission port" 587 although it can also be done with STARTTLS.
Second, relay, getting email from your server to somebody else's server. A large proportion of today's servers default to STARTTLS over SMTP for MX. So this means when they connect to a peer server to exchange mail they'll enquire about using TLS and do so if possible. A passive adversary can't stop this happening.
Finally, delivery. Almost all modern IMAP clients default to using TLS with IMAP, so this step will be encrypted. Even in clients that don't require TLS a passive adversary can't stop them upgrading by default if possible.
wffurr|5 years ago
https://transparencyreport.google.com/safer-email/overview?h...
Password reset emails are already extremely common and a way of implementing the "second factor only" method in the OP.