Does it require an array of fucking containers and a flurry of webAPI calls? Then no.
I still have no idea how to use passkeys. It doesn't seem obvious to the average user.
I tried adding a passkey to an account, and all it does is cause a Firefox notification that says "touch your security key to continue with [website URL]". It is not clear what to do next.
After my password manager auto filled a password and logged me in the website said "Tired of remembering passwords? Want to add a passkey?" I didn't know what it meant so I said no lol.
I think you actually have to buy a passkey device. Then configure it to work with a particular account.
You plug the passkey into your computer and then whenever it asks for a password you literally touch it and it does its thing. I think there are options like biometrics that you can add on top but you don't have to have that.
Devices themselves can act as passkeys too - I.e. your phone, laptop etc...
...except the ones that can't
I think it depends on whether you have a TPM chip in it
Thanks for clarifying
If that's what's needed, I can say with some certainty that adoption isn't going to be picking up any time this decade.
They've been around forever as a concept I think I even have one for accessing some servers at work. You're right no one uses them.
ITT: Incredibly non-technical people who don’t have the first clue how Passkeys work but are convinced they’re bad due to imaginary problems that were addressed in this very article.
This is a weird thread. Lots of complaints about lock in and companies managing your keys, both of which are easily avoidable, the exact same way you'd do so with your passwords.
Also the people talking about added complexity? I'm convinced all the complaints are from people who haven't set one up or used one and are immediately writing it off. Adding one is a single click of a button.
Then to sign in I literally just get a thumbprint request on my phone after entering my username. It's far far simpler than passwords and MFA.
If the passkeys aren't managed by your devices fully offline then you're just deeper into being hostage to a corporation.
That's a great way to lose access if your device gets lost, stolen, or destroyed. Which is why I'm against and will continue to be against forcing 2FA and MFA solutions onto people. I don't want this, services don't care if we're locked out which is why they're happy to force this shit onto people.
Well yeah, that is true. Security and convenience are usually at odds... MFA has place, unless you don't mind some guy from russia access your online bank account ; but I definitely wouldn't use it on all my accounts.
Yeah and since Online bank accounts can also almost always be reset if you lose the 2FA/MFA key by calling customer support, or going to your bank and speaking with themt in person, there's almost no risk of losing access completely. It's a service you have access to because you're you. Something that isn't the case with Reddit, Github, Lemmy accounts, or Masotodon. I'm not able to regain access after losing those 2FA solutions by virtue of being myself, they treat you just like the attacker in those cases. Really not worth it there, both since what is being protected isn't worth it, and the risk far outweighs it.
Access to my main email account (outlook) is currently blocked because someone decided to try a password from some earlier leak and locked it. It can only be unlocked with SMS MFA, which I can't use because I'm travelling abroad. There is no other way to do it. The other option they give you a form that only works if you don't have MFA set up (it says so on the faq). I even asked someone to fill the form from my home computer so the location data matches earlier accesses, but didn't work. You also can't contact support without logging in. If I had lost/changed that phone number for any reason, I would lose access forever. Luckily I will be back home soon.
Y'all here talking so smart ignore another thing - the more complex your solutions are, the deeper you are into being hostage to everyone capable of making the effort to own you.
Don't wanna be hostage - don't use corporate and cloud services for things you need more than a bus ticket.
You are being gaslighted to think today's problems can be solved by more complexity. In fact the future is in generalizing and simplifying what exists. I'm optimistic over a few projects, some of which already work, and some of which are in alpha.
Thank goodness you didn’t mention any names
Projects don't react too well to premature attention.
Not to mention Apple let's you SHARE them with airdrop.
The lock-in effect of passkeys is something that this protocol aims to solve though. The “only managed by your device” is what keeps us locked in, if there is no solution to export and import it on another device.
The protocol aims to make it easy to import and export passkeys so you can switch to a different provider. This way you won’t be stuck if you create passkeys e.g. on an Apple device and want to switch to e.g. Bitwarden or an offline password manager like KeyPassXC
The specifications are significant for a few reasons. CXP was created for passkeys and is meant to address a longstanding criticism that passkeys could contribute to user lock-in by making it prohibitively difficult for people to move between operating system vendors and types of devices. […] CXP aims to standardize the technical process for securely transferring them between platforms so users are free […].
And who forces all the corps to correctly implement that protocol? Getting you locked in is in all of their interests, after all.
I think it‘s fair to remain skeptical but the big organizations were part of the development, so there seems to be some interest. And it‘s not always in their interest to lock users in, when it also prevents users from switching to their platform.
Development of technical standards can often be a fraught bureaucratic process, but the creation of CXP seems to have been positive and collaborative. Researchers from the password managers 1Password, Bitwarden, Dashlane, NordPass, and Enpass all worked on CXP, as did those from the identity providers Okta as well as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, and SK Telecom.
That's between platforms though. I like my stuff self-managed. Unless it provenly works with full offline solutions I'll remain sceptical.
I like my stuff self-managed.
Bitwarden / Vaultwarden is a popular available working solution for self-hosting and self-managing passkeys (as well as passwords).
TBH I don't see a reason why something as simple as a password manager needs a server, selfhosted or not. I don't get the obsession with syncing everything, so would rather stick with normal KeepassXC.
Have you never lost your password device (phone, laptop, etc) suddenly and unexpectedly? That's when you really want that file synced somewhere else. But then it's too late. Bonus on many password vault servers is shared folders, so one can share their garage door code with the family but keep the bank account details to oneself.
No, but this is very unlikely because I do keep regular backups manually. I just don't feel the need for it to be a constantly-online server.
The real problem is not passwords so much as trusted sources. Governments should have an email account that citizens have a right to and will not go away and have local offices to verify access issues.
I don't want my government hosting my email.
The last time they had to do anything important they stoled all the sensitive data in plain text in an Excel spreadsheet and then the spreadsheet got corrupted so they lost everything. Of course they didn't have backups.
But at least since it was stolen, the backup was hosted for free on the hacker forums /s
No. Wtf no.
Whatever you're smoking, do less of that
I bet the gov would love to host your email and have access to all the same info Google does...
Literally just use a password manager and 2/MFA. It’s not a problem. We have a solution.
Actually, it is still a problem, because passwords are a shared secret between you and the server, which means the server has that secret in some sort of form. With passkeys, the server never has the secret.
Never forget that technologically speaking you're nothing like the average user. Only 1 in 3 users use password managers. Most people just remember 1 password and use it everywhere (or some other similarly weak setup).
Not remembering passwords is a huge boon for most users, and passkeys are a very simple and secure way of handling it.
I work for multiple organizations. The majority of which have a Google sheet with their passwords in that are
c0mpanyname2018!
Those that aren't are
pandasar3cute123?
At one point the organization I work for had a password that was literally Password-022!, guess what it was the following month?
I had to start hashing passwords and sending it to the haveibeenpwned API.
I also fight with my users over data normalization because any time I add some rule (like don’t put “SO#” as part of the value of the “SO#” field), they’re too stupid to realize the point and find some other “hack” around it.
I'll switch when it's fully implemented in open source and only I am the one with the private key. Until then its just more corporate blowjobs with extra steps.
What do you means by this? What part do you want to be open source? Passkey are just cryptographic keys, no part of that requires anything unfree. There's aready an open source authentication stack you can use to implement them. You can store them completely locally with KeyPassXC for selfhost Vaultwarden to store them remotely. Both are open source?
That’s exactly how passkeys work. The server never has the private key.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
