<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>U2f on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/u2f/</link>
    <description>Recent content in U2f on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/u2f/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Self-Hosted PAM Multi-Factor Authentication: pam-u2f vs Google Authenticator PAM vs libpam-oath</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-05-24-self-hosted-pam-mfa-u2f-totp-oath-guide/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-05-24-self-hosted-pam-mfa-u2f-totp-oath-guide/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Multi-factor authentication (MFA) is essential for securing self-hosted servers, but most organizations rely on cloud-based MFA services like Duo, Okta, or Azure MFA. For fully self-hosted infrastructure, PAM (Pluggable Authentication Module) provides MFA capabilities without external dependencies. In this guide, we compare three open-source PAM MFA modules: &lt;strong&gt;pam-u2f&lt;/strong&gt; (FIDO2/U2F hardware keys), &lt;strong&gt;Google Authenticator PAM&lt;/strong&gt; (TOTP time-based codes), and &lt;strong&gt;libpam-oath&lt;/strong&gt; (OATH HOTP/TOTP protocols) — evaluating their security models, deployment complexity, and user experience.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
