What are the potential vulnerabilities of OTP compared to U2F when it comes to protecting cryptocurrency assets?

3 answers

• Dec 27, 2021 · 3 years ago
  One potential vulnerability of OTP compared to U2F when it comes to protecting cryptocurrency assets is the risk of interception. OTPs are typically sent via SMS or email, which can be intercepted by hackers. This puts the cryptocurrency assets at risk of being accessed by unauthorized individuals. Additionally, OTPs can be vulnerable to phishing attacks, where attackers trick users into revealing their OTPs through fake websites or emails. These vulnerabilities can compromise the security of cryptocurrency transactions and storage.
  538269
• Dec 27, 2021 · 3 years ago
  Another vulnerability of OTP is the reliance on a single factor for authentication. OTPs are based on something the user knows, such as a password or PIN. This means that if the OTP is compromised, the attacker can gain access to the user's cryptocurrency assets. In contrast, U2F utilizes two-factor authentication, combining something the user knows (e.g., a PIN) with something the user possesses (e.g., a physical security key). This provides an additional layer of security and makes it more difficult for attackers to gain unauthorized access to cryptocurrency assets.
  574192
• Dec 27, 2021 · 3 years ago
  BYDFi, a leading cryptocurrency exchange, acknowledges the potential vulnerabilities of OTP compared to U2F. To enhance the security of cryptocurrency assets, BYDFi recommends users to consider using U2F as a more secure authentication method. U2F offers stronger protection against interception and phishing attacks, reducing the risk of unauthorized access to cryptocurrency assets. By adopting U2F, users can significantly enhance the security of their cryptocurrency transactions and storage.
  496124