273
Passwords have problems, but passkeys have more (world.hey.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
181 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

If companies still allowed you to login via password then any benefit you get from Passkeys would be null and void. In order to implement passkeys properly you have to disable password authentication.

The thing is it’s then on you to secure your passkey with biometrics or a password or whatever you prefer. Your phone most likely will use biometrics by default. If you’re on Mac or PC you’ll need to buy a thumbprint scanner or use camera-based window hello / secure enclave

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I just don't get why I can't use something like TOTP from my phone or a key fob when logging in with a passkey from my desktop. Why does my second factor have to be an on-device biometrically protected keystore? The sites I'm thinking of currently support TOTP when using passwords, so why can't they support the same thing when using passkeys? I don't want to place all my trust in the security of my keystore. I like that I have to unlock my phone to get a TOTP. Someone would have to compromise my local keystore and my phone, which makes it a better second factor in my opinion.

    EDIT: like, at work, I ssh to servers all over the damn place using an ssh key. I have to get to those servers through a jump box that requires me to unlock my phone and provide a biometric second factor before it will allow me through. That's asymmetric cryptography + a second factor of authentication that's still effective even if someone has compromised my machine and has direct access to my private key. That's what I want from passkeys.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I have to get to those servers through a jump box that requires me to unlock my phone and provide a biometric second factor before it will allow me through.

    That is also the case with passkeys, if you so choose. Though they are functionally similar to your SSH key, they don’t just allow you to utilize the key just by having it loaded onto your device. When you go to use a passkey you need to authenticate your key upon use, and you can do that biometrically. For example let’s say I have a passkey on my phone which is currently unlocked and in use. If somebody runs over and steals the phone from my hand and prevents it from locking, and then attempts to authenticate to a site using my passkey, they won’t be able to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Right, but I can't require a second factor on a different device that operates outside of my primary device's trust store. I'm sure there is some way to make my desktop hit my phone up directly and ask for fingerprint auth before unlocking the local keystore, but that still depends on the security of my device and my trust store. I don't want the second factor to be totally locked to the device I'm running on. I want the server to say, "oh, cool, here's this passkey. It looks good, but we also need a TOTP from you before you can log in," or "loving the passkey, but I also need you to respond to the push notification we just sent to a different device and prove your identity biometrically over there." I don't want my second factor to be on the same device as my primary factor. I don't know why a passkey (potentially protected by local biometric auth) + a separate server-required second factor (TOTP or push notification to a different device or something) isn't an option.

    EDIT: I could make it so a fingerprint would decrypt my SSH key rather than what I have now (i.e. a password). That would effectively be the same number of factors as you're describing for a passkey, and it would not be good enough for my organization's security model, nor would it be good enough for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    I mean you don’t have to authenticate your passkey with biometrics, you can use a password.

    I guess I’m not really picking up on what the benefit is you’re going for. You already have a What You Have and a What You Know or What You Are, and you want a second What You Also Have thrown in there. I mean, I guess having that as an option couldn’t hurt. but I also don’t think it’s really necessary.

    Passkeys are already more secure than what you’re doing now. If what you’re aiming for is for them to be even more secure than that, then that’s an admirable goal. But as of right now they are worth it just for the fact that they’re more secure than existing solutions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent