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.

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

                  It may make it somewhat harder, but I wouldn’t say it makes bots impossible (eg. device farms).

                  But I agree botting has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

                  We are talking about “capturing” the user and I’m saying the protocol has built-in a method for services to require the users to use only the authentication methods the service allows.

                  The attestation certificate includes metadata securely identifying the exact maker, model, and capabilities of the local authenticator you used, with the purpose of allowing services to verify if they trust the authenticator.

                  So if you use your own no-name open source fork of a particular authenticator and don’t even register it with the FIDO Alliance Metadata Service then services requiring attestation would reject your keys (unless they explicitly make the exception for your particular AAGUID… but at that point why ask for attestation in the first place?).

          • 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.