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
        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.