Firstly, apologies if this is already covered in other ticket/s - feel free to merge/close this task if it is!
For context - I already have a TOTP/authenticator app enabled for my Wikimedia SUL account, that I added to my account prior to $wgOATHAllowMultipleModules / $wgOATHAuthNewUI being enabled on Wikimedia wikis (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1193928). When I originally added this 2FA/TOTP app to my account, the software gave me a list of recovery codes, which it said "will never be shown again".
Now that the new UI & multiple 2FA modules have been enabled in Wikimedia production, navigating to (e.g.) https://auth.wikimedia.org/metawiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAccountSecurity&action=enable&module=webauthn seems to puport to include a list of my existing recovery codes. However, only one recovery code is (currently) included on this list, and it's not one of the ones on the list of recovery codes that I was previously given when initially setting up 2FA.
So, I suppose my confusion here is threefold:
- The software is apparently trying to show me the recovery codes associated with my account, even though I was previously told by the software that the recovery codes would "never be shown again" after they were displayed during the initial 2FA setup. (I don't know if that presents any sort of risk or not -- I'd assume not, given that I assume this new behaviour is intentional; but as an end-user who's previously been given the "never be shown again" message, it's certainly unexpected.)
- The recovery code I'm being shown is one that I've personally never seen before. As an end-user, I therefore wonder how it's been generated? / why it's been generated? / whether I need to download it (and add it to my already-saved list of recovery codes) or not?
- The recovery codes that were previously generated when I originally enabled 2FA aren't shown in this list. As an end-user, that leaves me unsure & slightly worried as to whether my previous recovery codes have been unintentionally deleted / will still work or not. (I've since tested one of them, and it did seem to work; but prior to testing it out I genuinely wasn't sure if this would be the case.)