I'm not interested in providing that information. You can reproduce it without knowing my user name. On May 17, 2012 8:45 AM, "Mike Hearn" <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you provide the name of the account you're logging in to, we can go > take a look what's happening. > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Michael Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > > Regardless of how you say it works, I can bypass it every time it would > > seem. Again, by using the method in my original post. It's likely you > have a > > bug if this isn't the functionality you're after. > > > > I appreciate the statistics but they mean little to me. > > > > Thank you for taking the time to respond. I hope my suggestions and > findings > > will assist you in correcting these issues > > > > On May 17, 2012 5:51 AM, "Mike Hearn" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I understand your concerns, however they are not valid. You can be > >> assured of the following: > >> > >> 1) We do not see this system as a replacement for passwords. If we > >> block a login the user is notified and asked if it was them, if it > >> wasn't we ask them to pick a new password. In very high confidence > >> cases we will immediately force the user to choose a new password, > >> because passwords are still the first line of defense. > >> > >> 2) We do not see this system as a replacement for 2-factor > >> authentication. However the reality is that the vast majority of our > >> users do not use 2-factor authentication and this is unlikely to > >> change any time soon. 2SV imposes a significant extra burden on the > >> user such that despite heavy promotion many users refuse to sign up, > >> and of those that do, many choose to unenroll shortly afterwards. > >> Therefore we also provide this always-on best effort system as well. > >> > >> 3) In fact it is very effective at stopping the large, botnet driven > >> types of attacks we see on a daily basis and so saying it doesn't add > >> any security is wrong. Since going live the system has successfully > >> defended tens of millions of users who have a compromised password. A > >> single unrepresentative data point based on one account isn't enough > >> for you to judge the utility of the system, whereas we can clearly see > >> the stopped campaigns (and drop in number of attempts). > >> > >> That said, if you have friends and relatives who use Google and you'd > >> like to to make them more secure, by all means encourage them to set > >> up two-factor authentication. > > > > -- > > Mike Hearn | Senior Software Engineer | [email protected] | Account > security team >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
