Jump to content
PseudoIT

Multi Factor Authentication

Recommended Posts

I can see Multi Factor Authentication is listed on the roadmap for this year, I was just wondering if you are able to shed some light as to what Multi Factor Authentication options will be available. Ideally, we would love to see integration with Duo Security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Initially we are planning to integrate Pulseway with google 2FA, however I have added 'Duo Security' into the list of the feature requests, therefore our developers will consider the possibility to introduce this option into the future release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the timeline for this? Is there any way to sign up for a beta of this feature? I would love to switch us to Pulseway but I know my manager will not proceed unless 2FA with Google/text/etc is implemented. The current 2-step email option is not sufficient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any word on when we might get genuine two factor auth of any kind? I have 22+ servers I want to bring into Pulseway RMM but cannot as it is doesn't meet PCI or GDPR complaiance to be without two factor auth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Nathan,

We do support 2FA by email, why do you consider that not to be compliant? Also I'm excited to let you know that we have plans to support OTP (One Time Passcodes) and PUSH-based authorization in the future.

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Paul said:

Hey Nathan,

We do support 2FA by email, why do you consider that not to be compliant? Also I'm excited to let you know that we have plans to support OTP (One Time Passcodes) and PUSH-based authorization in the future.

-Paul

Because it's not true 2FA. It's a single email, which at best is a very average solution, for access to only a small portion of the RMM site functionality. Compliance requires that we secure the data on the machines behind 2FA, which this implementation ignores entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify see the below excerpts from the PCI Security Standards Council Documentation:

PCI DSS requires MFA to be implemented as defined in Requirement 8.3 and its sub-requirements. Guidance on the intent of these requirements is provided in the Guidance column of the standard, which includes; “Multi-factor authentication requires an individual to present a minimum of two separate forms of authentication (as described in Requirement 8.2), before access is granted.

Further to this:

The overall authentication process for MFA requires at least two of the three authentication methods described in PCI DSS Requirement 8.2:
a) Something you know, such as a password or passphrase. This method involves verification of information that a user provides, such as a password/passphrase, PIN, or the answers to secret questions (challenge-response).

b) Something you have,such as a token device or smartcard. This method involves verification of a specific item a user has in their possession, such as a physical or logical security token, a one-timepassword (OTP) token, a key fob, an employee access card, or a phone’s SIM card. For mobile authentication, a smartphone often provides the possession factor in conjunction with an OTP app or a cryptographic material (i.e. certificate or a key) residing on the device.

c) Something you are, such as a biometric. This method involves verification of characteristics inherent to the individual, such as via retina scans, iris scans, fingerprint scans, finger vein scans, facial recognition, voice recognition, hand geometry, and even earlobe geometry.

And finally:

Independence of Authentication Mechanisms
The authentication mechanisms used for MFA should be independent of one another such that access to one factor does not grant access to any other factor, and the compromise of any one factor does not affect the integrity or confidentiality of any other factor. For example, if the same set of credentials (e.g.username/password) is used as an authentication factor and also for gaining access to an e-mail account where a secondary factor (e.g.one-time password) is sent, these factors are not independent. Similarly, a software certificate stored on a laptop (something you have) that is protected by the same set of credentials used to log in to the laptop (something you know) may not provide independence.

Pulseway's current solution does not meet the IAM requirement. The Pulseway password reset and "2FA" provided are both manageable from a single email sign in. 2FA require snot just a password to a system, but a physical device - the easiest of which is a smartphone with an authenticator.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2FA should be a minimum sign in requirement and an administrator should be able to FORCE all users to use 2FA

Another option for 2FA would be to build it into the Pulseway App as a push notification which would allow usme to accept or deny the access, this is the same process used by Microsoft and requires a Fingerprint or Passcode on the mobile device which is independent of Pulseway.

This should be at the top of the development list and treated as a priority development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×