A rebuttal to an anti-passkey, pro-TOTP post that has made the rounds on Lemmy as well.

      • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        that’s quite a leap.

        Yes google does have a lot of control over the HTML and HTTP specs because they control the most popular web browser. Whether people are or will in the future be “locked in” to google for that reason is debatable.

        Regardless, the potential for a company to dominate the implementation of a specification is not a reason not to create said specification.

        • bjc@scribe.disroot.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Regardless, the potential for a company to dominate the implementation of a specification is not a reason not to create said specification

          yes it is

            • Ferk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours ago

              Imagine if HTTP explicitly documented as part of the standard that the “User-Agent” header, when provided, must include a tamper-proof cryptographic signature that allows to securely identify which browser version the user has (with a consortium maintaining a list of registered browsers) so that websites can reject access if you are not using a browser they trust or they don’t like that your browser is too old…

              Considering how much abuse there has been with the User-Agent header… I can’t imagine it being a good idea to include such a thing in the standard.

              If on creation HTTP had included things like that, then I think Gopher and other competitors at the time might not have been a bad option, honestly.

              • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 hours ago

                I don’t see your point I’m sorry. This would make it easier for Google to exclude small competitors.

                • Ferk@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 hours ago

                  The point is that not all protocols are created equal. So “we shouldn’t have created HTTP” depends on what HTTP is specifying.

                  If a protocol makes it easier for big players to abuse the system, then it’s a worse protocol in that respect.

                  The point being made against passkeys is that, in some respects, it’s worse because of the inclusion of attestation as part of the standard.

            • bjc@scribe.disroot.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 day ago

              we should have learned our lesson after they did and done our damndest to create protocols immune to capture. there were excuses in 1989, there aren’t now

                • Ferk@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 hours ago

                  A good start would be to not bundle into the protocol a method explicitly intended for services to be able to securely identify what local software (or hardware) you used with the explicit purpose of allowing the service to be able to reject access if that client software (or hardware) is not allowlisted.

                  Passkeys is a great idea. But the “Attestation” part of the protocol …not so much.

                  • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 hours ago

                    Is this with the intention of excluding bots?

                    This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

              • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                19 hours ago

                Honestly not sure what’s going on in this thread.

                Don’t invent the internet because then you will have internet companies.

        • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          google will also control the most popular passkey manager. is that not obvious by how they already control the most popular password manager, browser, search engine and more?

          • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            I’m really struggling to follow your logic here. You’re saying they already have the most popular password manager so we shouldn’t support a next gen, more secure, open standard because Google will have the most popular client for that also?

            The obvious problem with this reasoning is that… there will be alternatives of you don’t wish to use googles implementation.

            • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              18 hours ago

              unless google finds a way to lock you in (or out), like they’ve done pretty much everywhere else. me and you using foss won’t change what’s coming for society at large.

              i mean how can you not see how they have been hoovering up everything on the internet for the last couple of decades and think they won’t find a way to to capture this too and run it their way, like all before it?

              • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                15 hours ago

                I do see Google’s behavior and I’m certain that they will do their best to capture this as they have everything else.

                However, it’s an absurdity to suggest that we should not develop new protocols because google will act to ensure they have the largest market share.

                • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 hours ago

                  there’s the thing though: “we” are not developing it. “they” are.