“Passkeys,” the secure authentication mechanism built to replace passwords, are getting more portable and easier for organizations to implement thanks to new initiatives the FIDO Alliance announced on Monday.

  • dantheclamman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    They are really satisfying when they work. I have been impressed by how well they work cross platform in the new bitwarden. It even worked from Android one time with a key made on windows! However, I dread when my mom tells me she needs help with an account and I can’t do anything because the key is on her iOS Keychain I don’t have access to

  • 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m not convinced this is a good idea. Resident keys as the primary mechanism were already a big mistake, syncing keys between devices was questionable at best (the original concept, which hardware keys still have, is the key can never be extracted), and now you’ve got this. One of the great parts about security keys (the original ones!) is that you authenticate devices instead of having a single secret shared between every device. This just seems like going further away from that in trying to engineer themselves out of the corner they got themselves into with bullshit decisions.

    Let me link this post again (written by the Kanidm developer). Passkeys: A Shattered Dream. I think it still holds up.

    • unskilled5117@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The author of your blog post comes to this conclusion:

      So do yourself a favour. Get something like bitwarden or if you like self hosting get vaultwarden. Let it generate your passwords and manage them. If you really want passkeys, put them in a password manager you control. But don’t use a platform controlled passkey store, and be very careful with security keys.

      The protocol (CXP) which the article is about, would allow you to export the passkeys from the “platform controlled passkey store” and import them into e.g. Bitwarden. So i would imagine the author being in favor of the protocol.

      • msage@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Does this require any 3rd party to work? I remember reading a blog, something about attesting the client, which was some big corpo like Google/Apple/Microsoft… that’s not for this, right?

        • Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          While the defaults are typically to use what the browser or OS has for storage and sync of the passkeys, you can use other things.

          Like KeePassXC:

          https://keepassxc.org/blog/2024-03-10-2.7.7-released/

          As for attestation to how the key is stored securely (like in a hardware key), Apple’s implementation doesn’t support it for iCloud ones, so any site that tries to require it wouldn’t work for millions of people. That pretty much kills it except for managed environments (such as when a company provides a hardware key and wants to make sure that’s the only thing that’s used).

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If the passkeys aren’t managed by your devices fully offline then you’re just deeper into being hostage to a corporation.

    • unskilled5117@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The lock-in effect of passkeys is something that this specification aims to solve though.

      It 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 with e.g. Apple 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 […].

      • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        And who forces all the corps to correctly implement that protocol? Getting you locked in is in all of their interests, after all.

        • unskilled5117@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.

      • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That’s between platforms though. I like my stuff self-managed. Unless it provenly works with full offline solutions I’ll remain sceptical.

        • darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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).

          • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • Synestine@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                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.

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • kiagam@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

      • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        In case the device gets lost/stolen, you should have a backup of the database that contained the passkeys. That’s why I would be only using the implementations that allow doing that easily.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

  • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Passkeys are an ancient authentication setup, have always been better than passwords and are finally getting traction.

    • priapus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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?

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s exactly how passkeys work. The server never has the private key.

      • devfuuu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        And we all remember the huge drama about it because they allowed for taking the keys out and backup them up.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think a big part of it was exporting them plain text by default. I’m in the “I know what I’m doing” camp but I guess for someone who doesn’t that sort of handholdy stuff not allowing the export them without encryption stuff makes sense.

  • Pyflixia@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Whenever I read stuff like this, my mind goes a bit hazy. Because I’m just finding myself asking ‘Why and when did the simple mechanic of passwords get this difficult?’

    Maybe if password requirements weren’t stingingly stupid, companies cared more about actual security and not an obstacle course they’ve gotta send people through to do one thing. We wouldn’t ever know or need to know systems like this.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      With passkeys you never need to worry about the storage method used by the site. Some sites STILL store passwords in plaintext. When that database gets hacked, it’s game over.

      A public passkey, even stored in plaintext, is useless to an attacker.

      Maybe that doesn’t matter for you or me, with our 64-character randomly generated passwords unique to each service, but the bigger picture is that most people just use the same password everywhere. This is how identity theft happens.

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Passkeys are much simpler to use than passwords, password managers, 2FA etc. if simplicity is your goal, Passkeys are your personal wet dream.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That one site - what was it, Mozilla’s/Gnome’s git? - that needed Aegis for login. Which is unlocked by pasword btw.

  • rickdg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you tell corporations there’s a way to increase lock-in and decrease account sharing, they’re gonna make it work.

    • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      One is a new technical specification called Credential Exchange Protocol (CXP) that will make passkeys portable between digital ecosystems, a feature that users have increasingly demanded.

      I.e. I can copy my key to my friends’ device.

        • 4am@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Read the article, it’s literally about replacing Import/Export CSV plaintext unencrypted files with something more secure.

          I.e. moving your passwords/passkeys between password managers. This is not about replacing stuff like OAuth where one service securely authorizes a user for another.

      • _bcron_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m not in software but from what I read the importer sends a request and that request is used by the exporter and importer to encrypt and decrypt, so I think there’s a way to tweak the whole process a little and instead have both the exporter and importer ask Netflix or whoever to provide a key as opposed to using the request. Could be wrong tho

        • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That’s not how Passkey, and the underlying WebAuthn works.

          (Highly simplifies but still a bit technical) During regiateration, your key and the service provider website interacts. Your key generated a private key locally that don’t get sent out, and it is the password you hold. The service provider instead get a puclic key which can be used to verifiy you hold the private key. When you login in, instead of senting the private key like passwords, the website sent something to your key, which needs to be signed with the private key, and they can verify the signature with the public key.

          The CXP allows you export the private key from a keystore to another securely. Service providers (Netflix) can’t do anything to stop that as it doesn’t hold anything meaningful, let alone a key (what key?), to stop the exchange.

    • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is straight-up wrong. I use FIDO2 and Yubico OTP auth in Firefox on a weekly basis.

      Are you sure you’re not using a hardened fork or tinkered with your about:config?

      The main thing that Firefox frustratingly does not support is PRF, which is needed for encrypting data with FIDO-compatible devices, but they are working on that.

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    What is the difference between a crypto wallet and a passkey?

    Is it just that a passkey has less functionality (and therfore better usability)?

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      No it’s actually pretty simple. No containers. Your passkeys can be managed in the browser (Google Passwords), by a plug-in like BitWarden, or in a third party hardware device like YubiKey.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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? 
        
    • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You can share passwords without the server seeing them. Many managers don’t but there’s nothing infeasible there. You just have a password to unlock the manager. Done.

        • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          What I’m getting at is that a web server has a password, in some form. And so if that site gets breached, your password itself may not get leaked, but the hash will. And if the hash is a common hash, then it can be easily cracked or guessed.

          • huginn@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ultimately I’m pro passkey but when it comes to password managers: if the hash of your vault is easy to crack you’ve fucked up big time. There shouldn’t be any way to crack that key with current tech before the sun explodes because you should be using a high entropy passphrase.

          • theherk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Not anything sufficiently modern. Salted passwords should be exceedingly difficult to reverse.

      • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Best password manager is offline password manager.

        KeepassXC makes a file with the passwords that is encrypted, sharing this file with a server is more secure than letting the server manage your passwords

        • hikaru755@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is not at all relevant to the comment you’re responding to. Your choice of password manager doesn’t change that whatever system you’re authenticating against still needs to have at least a hash of your password. That’s what passkeys are improving on here

        • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I agree, and that’s my method as well. Although I do not ever share the file with a server either. I only transfer it from device to device with flash drives or syncthing.

          • a baby duck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            How do you handle merging between devices? Do you manually transfer/sync every time you add a new password?

            Not trying to sell you on putting it in cloud storage or anything, but one really nice benefit to doing so is automatic merging through clients like Keepass2Android. If I add a new site to my phone and it doesn’t already have the latest copy of my vault, it’ll fetch and merge that first.

      • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The shared secret with my Vaultwarden server? Add mfa and someone needs to explain to me how passkeys do anything more than saving one single solitary click.

        • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Pass keys are for websites such as Google, Facebook, TikTok, etc. And then they go into what is currently your password manager or if you don’t have one, it goes into your device. You still have to prove to that password manager that you are, who you say you are, either by a master password of some sort or biometrics.

        • 4am@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          When a website gets hacked they only find public keys, which are useless without the private keys.

          Private keys stored on a password manager are still more secure, as those services are (hopefully!) designed with security in mind from the beginning.

          • weststadtgesicht@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            If a website with old-school passwords gets hacked, the hacker only gets salted hashes of passwords - this does not seem to be much worse?

            (Websites that store plaintext passwords surely won’t implement passkeys either…)

  • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s enough to read the title. The rest of the article doesn’t provide much else other than being one step closer. 😄

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

          • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            What are you talking about? KeepassXC, to my knowledge, is not dependent on any TPM, snd it does support passkeys.

            • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              devices themselves can act as passkeys

              I didn’t say a device needs a TPM to support passkeys - I said I believe it it needs one to be a passkey

              Thank you for your passive aggressive response caused by poor reading comprehension, though

              • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                From what I understand, “passkey” refers to software, so no such thing as “device being a passkey”. Unlike a hardware key.

                • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You understand incorrectly. “passkey” refers to a token used for the public key authentication that is used for sign in, which needs to be stored somewhere - this can be stored in a hardware key like a YubiKey, or in your device’s credentials manager. In principle, this could be anywhere, but it needs to be somewhere secure to not be trivial to compromise (eg taking out your HDD and just copying your passkey off it)

                  In Windows’ case, this secure credentials store is the TPM chip, which is why you are not able to use passkeys on Windows devices that have no TPM chip (unless you use another hardware implementation).

                  Tldr: passkeys are data, not software, and to store the data, you need some form of hardware, which needs to be secure to not be a really bad idea.

                  If you’d like to do some reading before confidently correcting me further, I’d suggest reading about how passkeys work.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • thequickben@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      You don’t need a device btw. It works with your password manager and can also be used alongside a password too. Don’t have your password manager? Just use your regular password if you know it.