this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
503 points (92.7% liked)

Technology

59232 readers
3416 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Big Tech has implemented passkeys in a way that locks users into their platforms rather than providing universal security
  • Passkeys were developed to replace passwords for better account security, but their rollout by Apple and Google has limited their potential
  • Proton Pass offers passkeys that are universal, easy to use, and available to everyone for improved online security and privacy.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com 36 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The issue is that most of them are limited in the amount of passkeys they can manage.

In the case of the Yubikey 5

Currently, YubiKeys can store a maximum of 25 passkeys.

https://www.yubico.com/blog/a-yubico-faq-about-passkeys/

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It depends on the passkey type (resident vs non-resident keys)

[–] BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com 4 points 7 months ago

Right, now I remember reading about that, I forgot.

[–] hydration9806@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Passkey = Resident Key

Nonresident keys are not passkeys, they are solely a second form of authentication meaning the service you are logging into still requires a password.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Couldn't a site theoretically use a nonresident key with just a username, in place of a password?

This seems to imply it might be possible:

https://developers.yubico.com/WebAuthn/WebAuthn_Developer_Guide/Resident_Keys.html

Discoverable Credential means that the private key and associated metadata is stored in persistent memory on the authenticator, instead of encrypted and stored on the relying party server. If the credentials were stored on the server, then the server would need to return that to the authenticator before the authenticator could decrypt and use it. This would mean that the user would need to provide a username to identify which credential to provide, and usually also a password to verify their identity.

[–] hydration9806@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

For sure, but that still isn't a passkey. The method you are talking about is the equivalent of non-passphrase protected SSH protocol, which is a single form of authentication (i.e. if someone has your security key they have your account).

The term passkey implies MFA: having a physical key and a password, a physical key and a fingerprint scan, or equivalent.

Sure the username could be considered the password, but usernames are not designed to be protected the same way. For example, they typically are stored in clear text in a services database, so one databreach and it's over.

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (7 children)

How is 25 bad? Do you need a passkey for each service /app/website? Can't you use the same key for many services? (trying to understand how they work)

[–] BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com 36 points 7 months ago

Yes, you need a passkey per service, so you would quickly end up with your 25 slots full.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 19 points 7 months ago

Ideally yes, they're supposed to eventually replace all passwords. Of which I have hundreds. And yes not 100% of them will do that on the near future but a lot more than 25 will.

[–] CriticalMiss@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

I have 150 passwords in my password manager. I’m not buying 7 YubiKeys (and to be fair that’s not what they’re designated for)

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

/aparté: being downvoted for trying to understand gives me reddit vibes well done

[–] capital@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Being down-voted for asking questions is bullshit. Your questions are valid and those people suck.

[–] Natanael 3 points 7 months ago

You only need one per website if you want it to autofill the username, because resident keys held on the security token can be recognized and suggested automatically but otherwise you must first enter your username on the website and let the website send its challenge value for the corresponding domain and account pair so that your security token can respond correctly.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Having a key shared across sites wouldn’t be great. If it was great it would be an article talking about “passkey” not “passkeys” because you would just have one. Like some sort of Skeleton Passkey that unlocks all your shit when compromised.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's impossible. Passkeys were designed specifically to be impossible to share across different websites.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Well, that’s basically my point. It’s not a good idea.

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Thank you ; I misunderstood that one passkey could be like a fingerprint sort of

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, sharing passkeys across services is way too risky. One service gets compromised, someone gets your passkey, and then they have access to all of your services. It's the same principle with regular passwords.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Uh, each service only has access to your public key, not the private one that stays with you. It's less risky than a regular password.

Even with U2F hardware keys where the server-side stores the encrypted key (to allow for infinite sites to be used with a single hardware key), it's only decryptable on your key and thus isn't that useful for someone who has compromised a service.

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Thanks. I'm still learning about this "new" technology (which already is, what, eight years?)

[–] Natanael 1 points 7 months ago

It started with U2F which may be older?