On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:01:06 -0700 Rick Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not to my mind. SSO (single sign on) is, IMHO, a really bad thing. > Yes, it's easier to administer because the authentication is being > handled by someone else and you "don't have to be bothered". However, > now your security is now ENTIRELY dependent on the security of that > provider. If they're breached, YOU'RE breached. Relying on someone > else to provide your security is, again IMHO, a truly idiotic thing > to do. Thanks, this was my reasoning as well. But Matthew has a point too, that for low value accounts the trade off might be worth it. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
