Инсталирайте Steam
вход
|
език
Опростен китайски (简体中文)
Традиционен китайски (繁體中文)
Японски (日本語)
Корейски (한국어)
Тайландски (ไทย)
Чешки (Čeština)
Датски (Dansk)
Немски (Deutsch)
Английски (English)
Испански — Испания (Español — España)
Испански — Латинска Америка (Español — Latinoamérica)
Гръцки (Ελληνικά)
Френски (Français)
Италиански (Italiano)
Индонезийски (Bahasa Indonesia)
Унгарски (Magyar)
Холандски (Nederlands)
Норвежки (Norsk)
Полски (Polski)
Португалски (Português)
Бразилски португалски (Português — Brasil)
Румънски (Română)
Руски (Русский)
Финландски (Suomi)
Шведски (Svenska)
Турски (Türkçe)
Виетнамски (Tiếng Việt)
Украински (Українська)
Докладване на проблем с превода
Правила и насоки за дискусии
Докладване на публикацията
As for an inconvenient security option, i have never lost access to my account, therefore it definitely functions as a secure feature.
You very much can.
The flow for this could look like:
Place item for sale on marketplace > Trade confirmation using hardware security key
Further, on the security properties of the current set-up: TOTP and prompt-based 2FA can be phished (with session tokens being captured, using a program such as Evilginx). Hardware security key based 2FA cannot be phished.
But you cannot because it is Valve's system and they are under zero obligation to open it.
Is Steam secure? Yes. Being here 19+ years and i have never lost access to my account and that includes before Steam Guard Email and Steam Guard Mobile existed.
Secondly accounts are PHISHED because the end user gave away all their account details. The account name, the password and the KEY to the door, the Steam Guard Mobile code giving them access to the account.
How? by either logging into a known scam site or sites, tailored malware on your PC, the vote for my team scam, you have a pending ban scam on Discord, free knife click the link etc.
How does Steam (a program) know it is not you when all the account details are correct? It doesn't, therefore any action taken on your account is seen as you doing said actions.
The alternative is not plausible:
1) Someone would have to "GUESS" your account name from "millions of possible combinations".
2) Next they would have to "GUESS" your password from "millions of possible combinations" and then match it to your account name with "millions of possible combinations".
3) And finally they would have to "GUESS" the Steam Guard Mobile code "which changes every 30 seconds" to match both your account name and password to then have access your account.
The weakest link is the end user hence why even with hardware keys those users will still fall for scams.
This statement is logically flawed in multiple ways. For example: it assumes that because something hasn't happened yet, that it can't happen. That's false. Also, as they say, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. And this isn't even plural.
Yes, Valve are not obliged to follow suggestions made on the suggestions forum. Although, it turns out that you are, in fact, allowed to suggest things you think they should do. It's the point of this forum, as it happens.
Yes, that is what phishing means. That is literally the definition of phishing.
The rest of the industry has realised that saying "just don't get phished!" to users actually wasn't a good solution to the problem. They came up with actual solutions which are phishing-resistant, like hardware security keys and passkeys. They resist phishing because they're credentials which, by design, you cannot reveal to anyone else. It would be good for Valve to adopt the industry-recognised best practice, like they did when they adopted the industry-recognised best practice of mobile-based TOTP 2FA.
User error is specifically what hardware keys were designed to reduce, if not eliminate. That's what makes them better than previous approaches.
Steam would have to be on crack to implement hardware based keys like Yubikeys.
People are going to lose those things like candy. Why? Because people were losing them every other day when we had the old RSA keys. People absolutely could not keep losing them. We had one guy who was basically married ot the Fedex carrier with the amount of nonsense we were sending out constantly. ANd this was at a Fortune 100 company with a sales force of like 10k people. Now try to scale that to millions of users
Do you think anyone is actually going to register the 2 Yubikeys required for this? Because I guarantee you they won't unless you force it on them. Support is going to be recovering accounts for people at 10x the current rate just from people losing them.
People losing security keys is a thing to bear in mind, sure. Having a primary key and a backup is sensible.
Personally, the route I would take is this: let people sign up with a single Yubikey / other hardware key, and monitor the support situation. If support requests from the group who opt-in to hardware keys goes up disproportionately compared to baseline, then require two keys to be registered when opting-in going forward. But, starting with requiring two keys to be registered from the start is also totally reasonable, because it's a non-mandatory opt-in.
As a point of reference, I don't think Google require two keys when adding a security key to your Google account: "Once you receive your security keys, you can enroll in Advanced Protection. We recommend 2 keys, a main key and a backup to store in a safe place." (Source[support.google.com]) "Recommend" implies not required. A little hard to tell for sure on my own account because they bundle passkey and hardware key together in the settings, and I know they definitely only require a single passkey to be set up because I have only one single passkey set up.
Google's pitch for Advanced Protection isn't: "if you're thinking about getting Advanced Protection, you're already less likely to fall for anything, so I guess mobile 2FA is fine".
Security keys and the associated protocols and standards (FIDO2, WebAuthn, etc.) were developed and adopted exactly because experience has taught the industry that mobile TOTP 2FA is not more than adequate.
Valve have the system they require. In the same way my bank has a mobile app.
Logically flawed? Feel free to try to access my account. Please note: i will not be providing any details.
Secondly because it has not happened does not mean it will happen.
And finally i have never lost access to any of my PC accounts, bank account, credit card account etc. Why? Because i take my account security seriously. No torrent clients, no pirated games or software etc.
It is a "discssion forum" for suggestions and ideas.
I am aware of what phishing is hence the description and why it is not a security issue with the systrm Valve has in place.
Hey man this is my front door key, the address is, and tbe safe code is.
In response to:
And:
And yet the industry and hardware keys cannot stop end users chasing the promised gold at the end of the rainbow.
Secondly the flaws with hardware keys is (a) they can be lost and (b) they require websites to adopt and utilise the protocol.
And finally there are very intelligent people out there who like nothing better than cracking the uncrackable.
At the end of the day, it is a more inconvenient security measure than Steam Guard, and only those who have been demanding it will end up using it. Those who actually need it, will not, and those are the ones who will continue to give away their log in credentials and continue to get their accounts hijacked.
I mean that this sentence: "As for an inconvenient security option, i have never lost access to my account, therefore it definitely functions as a secure feature." was literally logically flawed. It's a faulty generalisation[en.wikipedia.org].
The rejoinder there "feel free to try to access my account" is just applying the same sort of logical fallacy again. Saying "show me that you've accessed anyone else's account" would be moving in the direction of correctness (in logic, anyway; it would be significantly less legal), but still not right.
And, "because it has not happened does not mean it will" isn't a point I'm choosing to ignore. Not sure where you got that from? I'm not saying it's a certainty that any specific account will be lost or never lost, because that would be an unwarranted generalisation.
Ok, so we're supposed to discuss suggestions here, right? Because in a forum, you discuss things. What suggestions are we supposed to discuss? I would say that we're supposed to make suggestions about changes that we think should be made to Steam, and then discuss those suggestions. It sounds like you disagree. What part do you disagree with?
Oh, it sounded like you didn't, because saying "accounts are PHISHED because the end user gave away all their account details." is a bit redundant. It's a bit like saying: "fish are fished because the fisherman took the fish out of a body of water". Like, yup, taking fish out of a body of water is what fishing is. That's sure what it is.
Can you stop people who are really determined to be a danger to themselves? No, you can't. But the world isn't a black and white place. There is such a thing as measures to reduce harm. Here's an example: buying paracetamol (otherwise known as "acetaminophen" or "Tylenol"). In some parts of the world, you can buy a massive bottle filled with hundreds of pills. In other parts, it's only legal to buy in blister packs of sixteen, and there's a limit on how many you can buy at once.
That's because one way to commit suicide is to take a massive overdose of paracetamol. If you've got a bottle of 500 loose pills, taking an overdose is easy. If you have to buy tablets 16 at a time, and push each one individually out of a blister pack, it takes a lot more work. You'll probably have to go to multiple shops to get enough, and then individually pop each one out of the blister pack. Turns out that when it's harder to do, fewer people end up overdosing[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]. Can you stop someone who is really determined to do themselves harm? No. People will still die. But you can take measures to reduce harm; fewer people will die. Fewer people dying is good.
It's not preventing deaths, but supporting security keys would reduce harm to users, and would do nothing at all to even affect people who chose not to use them.
The only thing I can think of that would harm the sensibilities of the people who would choose not to use security keys is if they have something of a pseudo-religious way of thinking. Perhaps the thought is: users, by committing the sin of greed, deserve what happens to them as a just punishment for their sin. In that mode of thinking, removing the punishment for sin would itself be immoral, and thus intolerable. I really do not like that mode of thinking.
a) You can lose your phone with the mobile app on it, too. That's why you're supposed to write down recovery codes when you set it up. Yes, sometimes the shared secret at the heart of the mobile app will be preserved by phone backups, which makes them less losable than security keys. This is one reason why passkeys, which use much the same underlying tech as hardware security keys, but in software (and so as backuppable as the mobile app shared secret), are probably going to be the mass-market way that adoption happens. From a technology level they're very nearly identical, so a platform which implements one basically also implements the other.
b) Yes, sites need to adopt the protocol to authenticate using a key. It's sort of like how in order to authenticate using a password, sites need to have a box you can type the password into. If a scam site chooses not to implement the protocol (not have a box to type the password into) then you can't authenticate at all on that site. Not being able to authenticate at all on a scam site that refuses to implement the protocol is a win.
The difference between security keys and passwords is that it does a scam site no good to implement the protocol to use security keys, because the protocol ensures that logging into Steam via the scam site with a key isn't possible. Whereas as a password (and code generated by mobile app) typed into a scam site will work to allow the scam site to login to Steam as you.
That all took so long to write. I'm so tired. Why am I doing something this futile?
Yubikey is just one company which implements this open standard. Nothing is changing hands.
And nobody said it's a 100 % surefire solution. nothing is. Don't know why random people on the forums always thing this should be a criterium.
However FIDO2 implemention will absolutely have an impact if enforced. It will be a lot harder to convinve somebody to do system level shenenigans to extract the private key.
So again, please please please Valve implement this and and implement it today, so I can say I told you so tomorrow as the forums will continue to be filled with posts from greedy and gullible people claiming Steam's security stinks because their account was hacked and the totally legit gambling site the random and totally trustworthy YouTuber says was completely legit had nothing to do with it.