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

    • 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
          9 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.