<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Multi-Factor Authentication on Nalar</title>
    <link>https://nalar.dev/tags/multi-factor-authentication/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Multi-Factor Authentication on Nalar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0700</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nalar.dev/tags/multi-factor-authentication/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Choose Multi-Factor Authentication by Threat Model</title>
      <link>https://nalar.dev/choose-multi-factor-authentication-by-threat-model/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nalar.dev/choose-multi-factor-authentication-by-threat-model/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Multi-factor authentication (MFA) reduces the damage caused by stolen passwords, but not every second factor provides the same protection. A one-time code, a push approval, and a hardware-backed credential all add another authentication step, yet they behave differently under phishing, malware, social engineering, and account recovery attacks.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The useful question is therefore not simply whether MFA is enabled. It is whether the authentication method resists the threats that matter for the account being protected.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
