Hacker News Reader

> the fact that 2FA would have prevented it.

Is that so? The article states: "If the attackers inject server code, 2FA or U2F or any Web-based security practice does little."

View on HN

I don’t quite understand that bit, the attackers could at the time steal plaintext passwords - however how does that affect 2FA benefits several years after the attack?

It sounds like he’s mixing a couple of things up there unless anyone can explain otherwise?

It won’t prevent an attacker from logging in as you at the moment, but it will prevent them from using stolen credentials later on.

If they can inject server code, they can bypass 2FA entirely. They don't need your 2FA code they'll just skip that part of the authentication.

The same goes for passwords, but with passwords there is the potential of additional value on other sites that haven't been compromised so those are always worth collecting.

This particular scenario involved injecting server code in 2015, then waiting until 2019 to use the credentials they collected. They would not be able to bypass 2FA here.

It’s true that 2FA wouldn’t protect you from having your account compromised immediately, but that’s not what happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com