It rejects the first [correct] login attempt (it’s worded poorly). It assumes that a brute force attacker will try any given password once and move on, while a human user will think they made a typo and try again. This works until the attacker realizes that it takes two attempts, in which case it merely doubles the attempts required to breach the account, and simply requiring an additional password character would be vastly more effective.
Agreed, and also makes it readily known that that is what you are doing.
The sneakier more user friendly way to implement it would be to require the second correct attempt only if the user has made an incorrect attempt since the last successful login.
It rejects the first [correct] login attempt (it’s worded poorly). It assumes that a brute force attacker will try any given password once and move on, while a human user will think they made a typo and try again. This works until the attacker realizes that it takes two attempts, in which case it merely doubles the attempts required to breach the account, and simply requiring an additional password character would be vastly more effective.
What a shitty user experience for regular users.
which is why they made a comic instead of a revolutionary thought leading blog post
Hey now, I’m sure there’s someone on LinkedIn suggesting this exact thing with layers of corporate speak.
Agreed, and also makes it readily known that that is what you are doing.
The sneakier more user friendly way to implement it would be to require the second correct attempt only if the user has made an incorrect attempt since the last successful login.
Look, we all need to pay a little for the greater good of security.
/s
Yup it’s like how software companies will get a hate on for pirates and take it out on their loyal paying cutosmers