If you login to the Gmail app on any device, it can also act as 2FA. Does not need to be the one where they send the push…any logged in device will work.
Even if you turned it back at this point, it still wouldn’t work.
This is pretty infuriating though; Google works just fine with any device that doesn’t run Android so why would they care that you’re running a custom ROM?
My guess is something less evil and more mundane: something about your number changed in their system and now they can’t send codes to it, which is why it’s grayed out. Maybe it was previously classified as a mobile number but now is classified as a landline.
Your only option, if you don’t have any backup codes, is to use that “Get Help” option they have that takes a few days and then either start carrying around backup codes, a Yubikey, or De-Google.
As a few people pointed out, it’s only SMS thats being phased out, so using Google Auth is a superior option if you still have access to set it up. But yeah, backup codes would be great for those already locked out by accident.
It’s the default because you made it the default. Change your damn security settings. Quick to rant about something without knowing how it works or how you got there is on you and not Google.
Using your device to do whatever is op’s right. From reading the post, it seems to me that the problem is that they disable other firms of auth. This is for sure intentional, or at least a low priority bug for obvious reasons. I had the same issue, but it was failing to pull up the menu in my stock nothing phone 1. It got fixed later, but why are my backup emails or phone numbers being used as other forms of 2fa. That is when I realised that despite my efforts, I have ended up relying on Google too much. In the process of changing that, even if it costs me money to host the servers.
If installing linux was a feature sold to you by Microsoft, and then Microsoft removed the ability for the feature to work on Linux, then that would be accurate.
Microsoft then forcing you to authenticate using the device that is only tied to your account via purchase, and NOT login records, AND disabling other forms of auth
I don't get this. Is this an SMS-based 2FA? If so, I'm not sure that Google has any ability to block that. Your carrier might, though, but that wouldn't be controlled by your device's OS. The option being greyed out on a third-party site has little to do with anything happening locally on your device.
If this is a push-based 2FA, then... yeah, you wiped the device, along with any tokens previously stored on it. This is also why any time you set up 2FA on any service, almost all of them warn you like a million times "If you lose or transfer your device before disabling 2FA, you will lose access to your account" before you complete the process.
This is different. This is something new google is rolling out. This isn’t SMS and it isn’t TOTP. Google is opting people into push based authentication based solely on them having an android phone associated with their account whether they’re still using that phone or not. Anyone not already using TOTP or WebAuthN should really add those to their accounts before Google decides to “help” you by opting you into their new proprietary 2FA.
The problem is they are turning OFF the SMS and instead sending a special dialogue to a nonexistent device for the user to hit a prompt. The device was never used, though, and it was never set up for 2FA. My default has always been SMS which they are now disabling.
Deprecating SMS authentication is a good thing, in all honesty. SMS is not a secure form of data transfer, and is trivially intercepted. You can buy and setup an illegal Stingray device relatively easily, and capture basically all wireless data from a phone within range.
That said, if the device was truly never used for 2FA, then there wouldn't be any push-based 2FA on the account to begin with. Unless there's another device that's been authenticated with your account somewhere, like an old phone. In which case, that's where your login requests are being pushed to. That's a setting that can only be enabled by successfully authenticating with a device at least once in the past.
If there was never any other authenticated device, then that setting on your account isn't there. Enabling that feature is a two-step process, and step 1 involves configuration on a local device before it can be enabled remotely on your account.
SMS could potentially be a secure form of Data Transfer if companies weren’t allowed by limp dinosaur legislators to gut your phone for any useable data with a simple app, but yeah I can see how it’s current state is lackluster.
You’re wrong, btw, the Google Prompts feature is Default and cannot be turned off.
Only if there's a previously-authenticated device. That setting can't be enabled without a key, and one of the required keys is produced locally by a logged-in device (which is why your device is trusted to stay logged in indefinitely). If enabled without a key, it's nonfunctional and should error itself out and revert to a disabled state.
If that somehow hasn't happened (which, in all honesty, would be very surprising to learn) and the setting is enabled on your account, then that'd be something you'd need to submit a request to Google to have fixed, otherwise you have zero recovery on that account.
Are you a thousand percent sure you've never had any other device logged into that Google account? When you attempt to log in, it should show you the device name it's sending the request to. For instance, when I log into my Gmail from an Incognito window right now, it says to check my Pixel 6 Pro. What's it saying for you?
Right. I think you can see where I'm going with this. The fact that you're being dodgy with the question is making me question your motives with this post.
So, what device? You don't have to tell me the name, but describe it to me. Is it the device that you flashed a new OS onto?
It’s not constructive to answer your question instead of explain the situation to you for the 8th time. There is only one device and it was wiped and can never be recovered, not even by restoring the OS, but the Google Prompt is still the default option forever now. I found this mildly infuriating.
The best solution is to use something like Google Auth since only the SMS is being phased out. Do you understand now or de we need to repeat this again and again?
So, when you said "The device has never existed", you realize how that was a bit misleading, right? The way you've been presenting this situation would suggest that Google enabled 2FA in an impossible manner.
The device existed. You ignored the warnings and wiped the device before transferring your authentication elsewhere. There's plenty of things to be critical of Google over, but flagrant user error like this isn't one of them.
The SMS vulnerability is not because of your apps. It’s because of the LTE protocol itself. It can be intercepted or redirected without touching your phone.
You actually have to buy the unlocked bootloader version of phones directly from Google, not something the vast majority of people could accomplish on their own. It’s a selling feature they provide so they can cut out middlemen at carrier services like Verizon (either that or Verizon locks it themselves, idk). I feel like if they wanted to detect that a device hasn’t been used in months or years before requiring you use it and only it for 2FA, they could.
Where did Israel come from? Who lived there first? Why was Israel set there and who deemed it all legal?
Imperialism.
People native to the area are shoved aside, money is sent to force those people being shoved aside and nobody is supposed to care they are shoved aside.
I agree chart pushes a narrative but the narrative is not “Palestinians are crybabies about missile strikes”
Would you mind parsing that out a little further? Surely you’re not saying that it’s fine that the IDF is killing almost 500x the number of civilians Hamas are because they have the iron dome, and pointing out this fact is propagandistic?
100% not agreeing with this person, but I think their point is that if Hamas attacks, their attacks are likely to be blocked by the iron dome, resulting in no Israeli casualties. But if Israel retaliates, Palestine will have casualties.
I think the thought process is to defend Israel by implying all the deaths they’ve caused is as a counterattack?
Again, not defending it, just interpreting what I think was being implied. Even if my interpretation is correct, so much is still missing from the thought process.
This amounts to “You tried to punch me a couple of times and landed one, so I beat the shit out of you with 500 punches - it’s racist propaganda to point out that I did that.”
There’s a reason I asked them to expand on what they said - I’m confident they’re trying to defend the indefensible, and I’ll just let them reveal that themselves.
do you think the recent conflict can tracked back to biblical times when prophet Moses lived?
so many things happened in that region, that includes there was a peace in that region for a time to time.
the recent conflict can be tracked at WW I, when British Empire take over that region from Ottoman Empire and they drew the lines and promised two ethnic groups of the same region.
WW I was over a hundred years ago. My point stands that only considering 15 years is a very myopic view on the region.
Can THIS conflict he traced back to biblical times? (By the way, it may even be selling yourself short to stop at Moses… but that leads to the question of how back do you draw the line of relevance…) no of course not. Realistically, while I’m inclined to look back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, there’s no one alive today that was alive at that time. 1 or 2 generations later can you expect everyone to forget the events of the past? Maybe not.
It’s a really classic example (maybe THE classic example) of violence begetting violence. Unfortunately the violent tendencies and hatred are institutionalized. It’s clearly not an easy problem to solve, but I’m fairly certain that violent terrorist attacks against civilians is not in the running for a solution.
EDIT: just to add, going back a thousand years takes us to the time of the crusades, during and after which there were Arab attacks driving out non-arabs… and Arab attacks against other Arab factions (not blind to the fact that all Arabs are not a monolithic group).
Going back a little further you have a history of violence and discrimination against the Jews and Arabs (and pagans and other people) by the Roman’s. You can see how hard it is to find a stopping point in the history of violence in the region.
So yes while the CURRENT conflict probably only tracks back a hundred or so years, the history of conflict in general in the region goes back thousands of years (probably 4 thousand years but im not sure there are even stories, much less even somewhat reliable historical accounts that go back much further than that).
Yes, this is a region that has been fought over since the dawn of human history. It’s centered between the various cradles of human civilization - Sumeria, Egypt, and Greece, so it would have been a strategic location militarily and economically. Jaffa is a port that dates back to biblical times, and during the height of the Roman Empire, Judea would have been a vital trading post on the silk road. It’s where monotheism began, so it holds great cultural significance as well. With the discovery of oil it became an indispensable ally for the industrialized world in a region destabilized by colonialism and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It truly is a prize to be won, and has been for thousands of years.
However, Israel is not a center of trade in the globalized economy under American hegemony, and perhaps as our dependence on oil wanes, its military/geopolitical significance will dissipate. The only remaining reason for conflict will be the Al Aqsa Mosque sitting atop the Jewish Temple Mount.
Edit: if any of the downvoters would take a moment to reply letting me know what they think I meant by this comment that would be much appreciated. Frankly, I’m a bit lost.
I think that the downvotes come from a place of not understanding what this comment tries to imply, hence not adding anything to the conversation.
For example. Someone can read this and think “Context matters, so that’s why Hamas did what they did, and what they did is fine and I stand with them”
Another person could read “Context matters, it doesn’t matter what Isarael did before, Hamas still did something unforgivable and Israel is still right and I stand with them”
Ultimately, at least for me, it’s hard to see what you’re trying to say with this comment, especially when the situation is so nuanced. At least that’s how I saw it.
Edit: if any of the downvoters would take a moment to reply letting me know what they think I meant by this comment that would be much appreciated. Frankly, I’m a bit lost.
Probably since you stressed the importance of context and refused to give any context
It also has to be noted that a huge element behind low Israeli casualties is the Iron Dome.
If you plotted a chart of attempted civilian deaths, you'd get a very very different picture. Personally, I'm not meaningfully less upset at someone who tries to murder me just because they don't succeed.
Iron dome didn’t come online until 2011 so you can see pre-iron dome on the chart, 2008-2011 and it’s not much different. If you do go out even further like another person posted you’ll see that comparatively high Palestinian deaths characterize this conflict. Before Hamas, before the iron dome Palestiniana have been the overwhelming victims of this conflict.
You’re just being overdramatic. My comment never mentions Palestine or Palestinians explicitly and to be clear I was referring to hamas, the terrorists, that hide behind Palestinian civilians.
Hamas is Jihadist and extremist. It would have been a fatal mistake for Israel to support them to undermine the secular movement for a free palestine. Trying to position Hamas between international support and the palestinian people sounds like a really cynical and bad idea.
There is no way the hard right in Israel would ever pursue such an agenda.right?
lemmy.today
Newest