<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>OTP on Nalar</title>
    <link>https://nalar.dev/tags/otp/</link>
    <description>Recent content in OTP on Nalar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nalar.dev/tags/otp/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Email OTP in Go: Single-Use Codes, Expiration, and Replay Protection</title>
      <link>https://nalar.dev/email-otp-in-go-single-use-codes-expiration-and-replay-protection/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nalar.dev/email-otp-in-go-single-use-codes-expiration-and-replay-protection/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h1 id=&#34;email-otp-in-go-single-use-codes-expiration-and-replay-protection&#34;&gt;Email OTP in Go: Single-Use Codes, Expiration, and Replay Protection&lt;/h1&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;An email OTP looks simple: generate six digits, send them, and compare what the user types. The security boundary is not the email API, though. It is the server-side challenge lifecycle.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A correct implementation has to make the code unpredictable, expire it quickly, limit guesses, invalidate older challenges when appropriate, and guarantee that a successful code cannot be consumed twice. Those properties are different from TOTP, even though both mechanisms are commonly described as OTP.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
