• HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Attestation for passkeys (software-based, syncable credentials) is antithetical to their mass market goals, and would freeze out independent, non-corporate-backed credential managers. It’s an explicit non-goal of the designers of passkeys, who work together in a forum anyone can join.

    And trust me, websites and apps like banks repeatedly asked for attestation at the beginning of the industry’s passkey journey. The platforms, browsers, and credential management apps have held firm that the goal of passkeys is reducing phishing and not some kind of trusted computing scheme.

    Isn’t this exactly what Microsoft Authenticator app does now? MS requires its own app to log in to corporate outlook accounts, and does not support TOTP and other password managers any more. So, authentication is more and more linked with identification of the user, and attestation. For example, the backup method is a phone call, which requires the user to reveal their phone number to Microsoft. And a future version of the MS authenticator app could easily require to add fingerprints, or facial recognition.

    This simply isn’t possible to do because attestation isn’t supported on the web for mass market, consumer authentication. Attestation for passkeys (software-based, syncable credentials) is antithetical to their mass market goals, and would freeze out independent, non-corporate-backed credential managers.

    The argument is there that requiring attestation would harm mass market adoption. This might be true for some optional services. But it is not true for those services that a lot of people simple have come to rely on to organize their daily life - Google Mail, MS Outlook for work mail, things like DHL parcel delivery, public transport, and so on. These services are in 2026 not optional any more, and the corporations providing them are pushing hard to identify and attest users.

    Another case where this has been happening if for example the German national train network, which requires for full usability and getting discounts to use its app, and which requires a user identification for any payments. The net effect is that you can hardly use the train without being fully traceable. This isn’t very nice if you are a normal citizen in a democracy, but becomes quickly dangerous if you are member of a minority group in a country governed by the nationalist far right or an authoritarian government.

  • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    One technical alternative for Linux users is to use for example the pass program, which stores via GnuPG keys, and put the key on a GnuPG SmartCard. This enables a kind of 2FA on the user side (one needs the SmartCard and its PIN).

    Another alternative would be KeePassX and YubiKey.

    Another password and TOTP, which can be required on the service side.

    This does not fully protect against phishing but is very helpful for using unique strong passwords.

    I do not think the phishing protection is worth additional privacy erosion. Privacy is not really a nice-to-have. Due to targeted advertising (see the Cambridge Analytica example), loss of privacy is turning into a real threat for our democracy.

  • Kajika@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    Passkey is barely implemented, seriously we have GPG keys or ssh keys and big tech refuses to implement at least that. Instead they are pushing for their Product™ to sell.

    Hardware solution could be nice but the market is stacked against any nice solution: I way a key I can backup, even emulate if I want too (having a purely digital copy). I don’t see the issue with ssh key in general.

  • magguzu@lemmy.pt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Honestly the original post arguing against them makes very valid points that I wasn’t expecting to read to the end, even if they probably lost 90%+ of readers with the length that could have been cut down.

    Speaking as a GrapheneOS and Linux user, the possibility of remote attestation to stop me from doing so is a legitimately shitty thought.

    Been quite a fan of the convenience though as I just hate having to keep my phone on me all the time. So I’m torn, but will continue using them at least until a whiff of big tech buffoonery comes around.

    Edit: Ricky’s arguments seem sound but I think you can also tack on “for now” to all of them. They also work for Apple so worth mentioning that potential conflict of interest/bias. I’d be curious of GrapheneOS’s take.

    • IanTwenty@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      I agree 100%, this post is not a full rebuttal and does not tackle the concerns directly:

      • The character of the organisations in FIDO does not inspire confidence against lock-in or monopolistic behaviour
      • The possibility of future attestation cutting out those on ‘unapproved’ software and hardware.

      I agree parts of the tech are good, particularly the anti-phishing, anti-replay measures.

      This post seems to say passkeys are in good hands so nothing can go wrong, but I don’t think that’s enough.

  • Zoutpeper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Not a single explanation of passkeys has managed to to convince me they are more secure than a password and MFA. All you need is access to someones phone. Before you needed a complex password and access to my phone.

    The passkey also can’t be backed up or replaced like MFA tied to my phone if it should unexpectedly die.

    Congrats we’ve reduced account access to a single point of failure?

  • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I swear most people have forgotten what TOTP was used for in the first place - two-factor auth to protect people re-using passwords getting hit by password breaches on other services, people using low complexity passwords, and to protect people’s breeched devices (e.g. computers getting viruses or malware or drive-by credential nabbers that give the attacker access to your credentials in some way). In short, to solve some poor security practices. 2FA via TOPT still solves all of those problems.

    Passkeys fix a different problem. On their own as a technology they essentially just increase the quality of a password, while tying that password to a single device. So they fix the problems of re-used passwords, and unsophisticated passwords. But with many implementations they fall back to being single-factor auth - if a user has access to your device, they can use the passkey (with exceptions such as passkeys stored on a physical second-factor like a Yubikey that requires physical approval to use).

    TOTP meanwhile requires two devices to be accessed by design.

    As myself and most tech-aware users already use unique, sophisticated passwords - they don’t solve a problem for us.

    However, if businesses allow passkeys as a simple password alternative, while still allowing TOTP as a second factor, I’d be happy to do so for critical access items (mostly banking). However, I’m not aware of this being the case for any common implementations in major businesses.

    Passkeys are just ‘Yubikey without the Yubikey or physical approval’ - pointless to me. False sense of security even.

    • IanTwenty@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Maybe one extra thing you are missing is passkeys are resistant (not proof) to phishing. The user returns an ‘assertion’ that:

      uses the private key to digitally sign a challenge value from the server, together with contextual information such as the requesting origin

      https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Authentication/Passkeys

      It useless to pretend to be the bank as you’ll get an assertion from the user you can’t replay and the user’s passkey implementation should spot the origin is wrong and refuse to sign it anyway (as I understand it).

      • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Maybe? I’d say that TOTP is probably more ‘phishable’ than passkeys - but I doubt there are actual stats on it.

        If an end-user is the kind of person that’s fooled by a fake bank website that is on the wrong domain with a sketchy certificate - and approve 2FA requests without much thought - then it is probably likely they’d be fooled by a fake bank website that says, “per our recent updates, [yesterday’s date] is the last date to switch to using an updated web browser. Our bank website is no longer compatible with this web browser, please open one of these browsers [list of any major browser useragent not identified as the current browser] and attempt login again”.

        That could either completely bypass their pre-configured bank passkey with legacy login to the fake bank, or the attackers could just pushing them to configure a new passkey to the fake bank on the new browser (the attackers wouls set up a real passkey to the real bank in parallel, using the supplied credentials in the background).

        There is certainly proof of concept and examples in the wild of significant cases of people being tricked into approving additional devices with passkeys.

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Passkeys fix a different problem.

      In my eyes the problem is that passkeys do not fix a problem. They just shift it to another layer…

      I can backup a password however I like. I can backup a TOTP authenticator (or specifically the secret that works with every one of them) however I like.
      I can not however backup a hardware device with my passkey.

      And the websites supporting passkeys obviously know it and explicitly warn when you don’t have an alternative way of logging in configured as it’s possible that simple hardware damage or loss locks you out of your account. Thus the “fix for a problem” is now relegated to a shiny new way of conveniently pressing the button on a key instead of typing and remembering passwords, while the actual attack surface is still there but now sitting in alternative login/account recovery instead.

        • Ooops@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yes I can backup a software one. But that’s not the point. Passkeys are advertised as the future for common people as they eliminate the biggest issues: phishing.

          But then they don’t advise people to use software passkeys, back them up and keep them save. Instead they tell them to configure an alternative/recovery login alongside the passkey should it be lost or damaged.

          They take a security feature, instantly remove the additional security and make it into a “you don’t need to remember and type your password”-convenience thing. Yeah, great. A password manager could’ve already provided that convenience.

          So in the end those more technically-minded that will look at this and decide to use a software passkey so they can back it up will get some additional security they need much less (they are not the primary target group for phishing), and some convenience they already had (because they are already using a password manager).

          Passkeys aren’t controversial because they are bad. They aren’t. They are controversial because the actual way they are used makes zero sense for the purpose of added security. Which raises the question what the actual goal is.

    • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 days ago

      If you’re asking that question you’re probably already at lower risk. Just think of scammers calling up your grandparents or something like that; they pretend to be Microsoft, ask for the user’s credentials, attempt to sign in, then ask for the user’s one time passcode. You can get more elaborate setups but that’s the gist.

    • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Fairly easily if you create a good replica of the original website the user is trying to log in to.
      In a lot of cases, even technically savvy people are not going to verify the URL.

      • artyom@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I see. I use a password manager so it would probably not fill in the password or the TOTP and throw a red flag for me.

        • IanTwenty@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The phishing attack could also try to convince you your bank had changed domains (hey we’ve been bought by Big Bank and will be moving your account to BigBank.com) and therefore not to expect your password manager to autofill (this is a stretch I know).

          Passkeys are resistant to phishing as they cannot be replayed and your authenticator should refuse challenges from the wrong domain. Even if it did solve a challenge from bigbank.com it’s worthless as the origin is included in the returned challenge so cannot be used by the attackers on the real bank site.

        • libewa@feddit.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          That wouldn’t work with the iOS passwords app, since Autofill breaks all the time…

    • tuhriel@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Call them, say you are the bank and they have seen fraudulent transactions, and to restore the account they will send you a code which you have to tell them…

      For the sms codes: it’s also pretty easy to copy/clone a sim

      There is also the option of a MITM attack with a portal that forwards the login to the real login page and then cuts your connection and the MITM has the open session.

      The good thing with passkeys is, there is nothing a fraudster can get from a user. You can’t forward your passkey via the phone, and MITM are much, much harder to pull off

      • artyom@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I was more referring to “authenticator” style codes. I dunno what else to call them. But you answered that as well.