Google Rolls Out Advanced Sign-In Security
A Google account is currently only protected by a username, which in most cases is an email address, and a password. Threats like phishing, brute forcing and social engineering are very common on today's Internet that try to gain access to a user's account information to gain access to the account.-
To protect its users, Google has decided to roll out an advanced sign-in security feature for Google accounts that makes those attack forms more or less useless.
Update: The easiest option to enable 2-step verification on Google is to open the My Account settings to do so. Google has changed how the feature is enabled and this is the way to do it. Locate 2-step verification on the page and follow instructions to set it up.
The 2-step verification is currently rolled out to all users. You can check the Account Settings page to see if the "Using 2-step verification" link is already available under Personal Settings > Security.
But what does it do? It basically adds a second login step after the username and password have been entered.
It is possible to receive the code via SMS, a call from Google or with a software that gets installed on the phone so that the code can be generated directly without direct contact to Google or the Internet. The software is available for Android, BlackBerry or iPhone devices currently.
The code is a unique temporary verification code that needs to be entered during login.
Once you enable 2-step verification, you'll see an extra page that prompts you for a code when you sign in to your account. After entering your password, Google will call you with the code, send you an SMS message or give you the choice to generate the code for yourself using a mobile application on your Android, BlackBerry or iPhone device. The choice is up to you. When you enter this code after correctly submitting your password we'll have a pretty good idea that the person signing in is actually you.
A hacker would need access to both the phone and the Google login information to access the account. While that is still possible under certain circumstances it eliminates many possible attack vectors.
The verification code can be remembered for 30 days on a specific computer so that it only needs to be entered again once the 30 day period is over. There is also an option to create a one-time application specific password to sign in from non-browser based applications that do not prompt for the code.
A backup phone and backup codes can be created in case the phone gets destroyed, stolen or lost.
Users need to carry their phone with them if they want to access the Google account. They also need to make sure that the phone is accessible, as it is not possible to log in to the account if it is not. (via)
Another issue that users may experience is that some apps and services don't support the new login verification system. Google makes available app-specific passwords that can be generated on the 2-step verification website for use in these programs.
“Do you use Google Photos?”
I do; I find it impossible not to use Google Photos on the Android phone; nevertheless, the “memory” feature is sort of neat. I’ve seen photos from a couple of years ago that that offer glimpses into the long-ago, forgotten past. It’s a lot like reviewing journal writing. “What was I doing and such and such a date?”
And, I think, when the “memories” are sorted and positioned, one can create a mini-collage with up to eight photos.
It’s so much easier to share photos with people rather than journal entries.
Nifty!
I delete the photos after 1 month of being taken. All of them are erased to return to the black and silent nothingness. Only the best ones are printed and placed in a very nice site at home. :]
I should buy a Chromebook.
None of the big tech companies are good but at least Google are the least dishonest and morally bankrupt of them. They’re always trying to do the right thing if the money allow it.
In reply to “https://www.ghacks.net/2023/08/19/google-keep-is-getting-a-version-history-but-only-on-the-web/” since the website has gone insane and no one can know where thier comment ends up.
This app should be called “Google Keeps it”. Because, they do.
I use Color Notes. No syncing, no internet, just local.
The article said: “[…] positive outcomes of genocide…”. Perhaps the AI was actually discussing the benefits of reading a “Scroll of genocide” … “You feel dead inside.”.
Martin, this post reply is supposed to belong: [https://www.ghacks.net/2023/08/22/googles-ai-search-generates-horribly-misleading-answers/] (given the the database is faulty it could appear anywhere or nowhere).
I have yet to be impressed with AI of any kind. I think it’s overhyped and not ready to live up to it.
How to use AI: Avoid the artificial stupidity at all times.
“When searched “Why guns are good,” it also prompted questionable responses, including potentially questionable statistics and reasoning. ”
Based on whose reasoning? These sorts of assertions are generally bullcrap intended to advance an agenda. If you don’t like guns, say so. Meanwhile, there are 400 million firearms in the US owned by close to a third of the population and around 20 million carry concealed.
So your opinion is not shared by a LOT of people who either enjoy firearm spots or are concerned about self-defense or both.
Wow. Ghacks still hasn’t fixed the broken comments system where old comments from a different article appear. Sad to see you slowly turn to dust since the buyout.
@Seeprime,
For over two weeks now,
I’ve been seeing “Comments” posted by subscribers appearing in different, unrelated articles.
https://www.ghacks.net/windows-11-update-stuck-fixed-for-good/#comment-4572991
https://www.ghacks.net/windows-11-update-stuck-fixed-for-good/#comment-4572951
For the time being,
it would be better to specify the “article name and URL” at the beginning of the post.
This guns comment came up in the Pixel watch repair post and I was bewildered as to what was the connection between the two.
goog = skynet
“human beings” = \slaves\
This info is so NOT correct.
I so do not want google in my life that I have NEVER downloaded chrome and I do NOT have ANY google accounts.
My browser is set to clear all cookies, cache and history every time I close it, which is every day, and I still get these world takeover login prompts on every site I go to.
So I CANT go to google accounts and turn it off.
If this info were truly accurate I wouldnt be getting these pop ups AT ALL.
Thanks @Ashwin for the article! :]
Anyone who continues to use these big tech scum’s cloud services deserves what they get.
Given Ghacks’ comments’ database problems I precise :
I’m commenting the article “Google is in trouble with YouTube Shorts – gHacks Tech News” by Emre Çitak
at [https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/04/googles-youtube-shorts-problem/]
—
About the article’s question, “What do you think about YouTube Shorts?” (BTW first time I read here any other writer other than Martin Brinkmann directly asks the audience it’s opinion, and that’s just fine) :
YouTube Shorts may suit smartphones (which I don’t use) but on a PC they are not my cup of tea, to put it mildly.
From what I read a bit everywhere, opinions are shared : love or hate. For those who dislike many scripts and dedicated browser extensions have been developed to handle them (removal or redirect to standard video display).
I don’ view YouTube videos on YouTube but via a Piped or a Piped-Material YouTube front-end instance and these offer on search results and on channels the option to view Videos-Shorts-Livestreams-Playlists-Channels ; well, I practically never open the ‘Shorts’ display. I don’t like shorts (except in summer, hmm), I dislike the concept, fast-videos after fast-food, fast, faster … to bring what? Emptiness, IMO
Does that answer your question, @Emre Çitak :)
I despise YouTube Shorts. So much in fact, I use custom adblock rules in Brave Shields to remove that crap.
youtube.com##ytd-grid-video-renderer:has([href*=”shorts”])
youtube.com###dismissible:has([href*=”shorts”])
There’s an extension for Firefox and Chrome browsers called “Youtube-shorts block”, re-opens the video in a normal window. :)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-shorts-block/
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/youtube-shorts-block/jiaopdjbehhjgokpphdfgmapkobbnmjp
ps. say NO to Shorts, it only encourage shooting vertical-videos which doesn’t go well with many desktop displays… except when shooting vertical objects, such as ahem… pretty ladies. :)
Page source shows that ghacks is still using WordPress as the platform. Knowing, more or less, how it works at the DB level I am not sure how one could mess up comments this badly. It is actually very difficult.
Google is the big leader of everything. Indeed it can actually buy Amazon, Disney, Netflix, X and whatever other company. I wonder what could happen if Google starts to build airspace ships in order to conquer the Moon. I bet that Google would be the first to offer free WiFi at the Moon. Please fix the comments.
This comment is inside the article:
[https://www.ghacks.net/2023/09/04/what-is-google-synthid-and-how-does-it-work/]
This “analysis” is disappointingly shallow and trivial. Why not include other factors like job level, responsibilities, full-time/part-time, qualifications, etc.? Because the conclusions probably wouldn’t fit the current leftist/feminist narrative. You don’t find what you don’t look for.
Misleading statistics.
Wage should be based on the amount of time, works, thinking (brain > muscle), responsibilities etc
Not skin pigmentation or your genitalia. There could be correlations, but not causations.
“Google maintains that it provides a superior product”
That is also Mozilla’s official position in defense of Google against the people, on that question of search engine abuse of dominant position by Google.
The funniest part is that not only it’s false regarding actual competitors, but even among not-actual-competitors there are meta-search engines that use exactly the same engine, just minus the tracking, so Google is clearly the inferior one compared to those already. But maybe what Google is saying is that it is the surveillance and bubbling that would make their engine superior. False again even without considering the damage those do.
“Google increases Chromebook support to 10 years”
I mean that’s great and all, but imagine using a browser-based, highly internet-dependent OS such as chrome. I’ve never used chromeOS but have seen it in person and read about it, just seems like ultra-limited user experience which relies on the concept that “most things can be done in a browser”.
What is there to support? It just a glorified web browser.
“Google launched Chromebooks in 2012 as low-cost devices and the company has had great success in the education world, especially in the United States.”
Happy tracking for all those unsuspecting children. And help normalize surveillance for those young brains. Well done Google.
No, AltaVista’s Search engine wasn’t difficult to use in the mid-nineties, and Yahoo didn’t own AltaVista either during the 1990s. Yahoo!, was a Web Directory. I was alive then and have actually used those engines, during that era, I should know if they were easy to use. So tell the angels what you’ve seen, scarecrow shadow on the Nazarene.