“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.

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 hours 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.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour 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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours 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.

  • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    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.

    • priapus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

      • Sl00k@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        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.

  • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours 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
        2
        ·
        7 hours 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
          4
          ·
          7 hours 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours 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.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours 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.

    • unskilled5117@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      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 […].

      • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours 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
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours 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
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours 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
          10
          ·
          14 hours 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).

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        not the first time i hear this though. im skeptical until proven otherwise

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    19 hours 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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      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.

  • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago

    Literally just use a password manager and 2/MFA. It’s not a problem. We have a solution.

    • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      23 hours 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.

      • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        23 hours 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.

        • 4am@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          21 hours 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.

        • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 hours 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.

      • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        22 hours 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
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 hours 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
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours 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.

  • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    24 hours 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.

    • priapus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      14 hours 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
      17
      ·
      21 hours ago

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

      • devfuuu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 hours 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
          1
          ·
          12 hours 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.

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    14 hours 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)?

  • rickdg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day 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
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day 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.

      • rickdg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I believe that’s Apple talking to Google, not anything local you can own.

        • 4am@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          21 hours 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
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day 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
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

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

          (Highly simplifies but still a bit technical) During registration, 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 sending 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.

  • 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    24 hours 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
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours 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.

  • Dasnap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 day ago

    I always feel like an old granny when I read about passkeys because I’ve never used one, and I’m worried I’ll just lock myself out of an account. I know I probably wouldn’t, but new things are scary.

    Are they normally used as a login option or do they completely replace MFA codes? I know how those work; I’m covered with that.

    • Sl00k@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I have passkeys setup for almost everything and on most sites I just enter my username then I get a request on my phone to sign in. Scan my thumbprint and it’s good to go. It’s actually so much simpler than passwords / MFA, but admittedly I haven’t had to migrate devices or platforms.

      I have everything setup through protonpass right now

    • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      Usually just an option in addition to a password + MFA. Or they just replace the MFA option and still require a password. I even saw some variants where it replaced the password but still required a MFA code. It’s all over the place. Some providers artificially limit passkeys to certain (usually mobile) platforms.

      • Semperverus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        All of those options are to NIST-spec. MFA means multi-factor. It doesnt matter what they are as long as they are in different categories (something you know, something you have, something you are, etc: password, passkey, auth token, auth app, physical location, the network you are connected to). Two or more of these and you are set (though, location might be a weak factor).

  • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    My password manager supports passkeys just fine, across Windows, macOS, Linux and iOS (and probably Android but I haven’t tried). Surprisingly, iOS integrates with the password manager so it’s usable just like their own solution and it works across the system (not just in the browser).

    This seems to be more about finding a standard way to export/import between different password managers/platforms?

    • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Correct. The spec is about making it easier and more secure to export your passwords and passkeys when you move from one password manager to another. People are misunderstanding this as some sort of federated authentication system to share your credentials between multiple password managers at the same time, which it is not.

  • Pyflixia@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    23 hours 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.

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours 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
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

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

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours 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.

  • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

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