Quasarke Forums
  • Communities
  • Multi-communities
  • Support Lemmy
  • Search
  • Login
Linux@lemmy.mlbylibewa@feddit.org
4 days

Passkeys are not a trap. Use them!

hachyderm.io

Crossposted from https://feddit.org/post/36692057

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

28
    Ricky Mondello (@rmondello@hachyderm.io)
    hachyderm.io
    If you actually read the “Passkeys are a trap. Do not use them.” post going around, you’ll find a transparent attempt to clumsily string together a conspiracy. The post is predicated on the idea that a feature of WebAuthn called “attestation”, which is only used in high-assurance and usually corporate scenarios, and usually with physical hardware security keys, will be leveraged to hurt people, somehow. The post posits that a website like X will bait and switch users: first, you get a passkey. Then, later, scary “attested” passkeys! This simply isn’t possible to do because attestation isn’t supported on the web for mass market, consumer authentication. Attestation for passkeys (software-based, syncable credentials) is antithetical to their mass market goals, and would freeze out independent, non-corporate-backed credential managers. It’s an explicit non-goal of the designers of passkeys, who work together in a forum anyone can join. And trust me, websites and apps like banks repeatedly asked for attestation at the beginning of the industry’s passkey journey. The platforms, browsers, and credential management apps have held firm that the goal of passkeys is reducing phishing and **not** some kind of trusted computing scheme. (And I will note: over my dead body!) Besides the theory of the case being fundamentally wrong, there are several things that make the post disqualifying in terms of arguing something useful or important in the realm of security, privacy, and user authentication: 1. Intentionally presenting things that are complicated as inherently suspicious. (Delivering security by design can be complicated, yes!) 2. Describing TOTP as a “great solution” for adding security to a password-based account. When the most common threat model on the web is phishing (a word the post never mentions!), TOTP hardly buys you _anything_. TOTP is phishable. 3. Seeming to be unbothered by how many logical leaps are being taken without actually understanding the topic being discussed. There are bad things happening in tech and untrustworthy people and companies do exist, but they’re largely in the AI space, not the “let’s stop people we love from getting compromised through phishing” space.
    You must log in or register to comment.

    • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org
      3 days

      Attestation for passkeys (software-based, syncable credentials) is antithetical to their mass market goals, and would freeze out independent, non-corporate-backed credential managers. It’s an explicit non-goal of the designers of passkeys, who work together in a forum anyone can join.

      And trust me, websites and apps like banks repeatedly asked for attestation at the beginning of the industry’s passkey journey. The platforms, browsers, and credential management apps have held firm that the goal of passkeys is reducing phishing and not some kind of trusted computing scheme.

      Isn’t this exactly what Microsoft Authenticator app does now? MS requires its own app to log in to corporate outlook accounts, and does not support TOTP and other password managers any more. So, authentication is more and more linked with identification of the user, and attestation. For example, the backup method is a phone call, which requires the user to reveal their phone number to Microsoft. And a future version of the MS authenticator app could easily require to add fingerprints, or facial recognition.

      This simply isn’t possible to do because attestation isn’t supported on the web for mass market, consumer authentication. Attestation for passkeys (software-based, syncable credentials) is antithetical to their mass market goals, and would freeze out independent, non-corporate-backed credential managers.

      The argument is there that requiring attestation would harm mass market adoption. This might be true for some optional services. But it is not true for those services that a lot of people simple have come to rely on to organize their daily life - Google Mail, MS Outlook for work mail, things like DHL parcel delivery, public transport, and so on. These services are in 2026 not optional any more, and the corporations providing them are pushing hard to identify and attest users.

      Another case where this has been happening if for example the German national train network, which requires for full usability and getting discounts to use its app, and which requires a user identification for any payments. The net effect is that you can hardly use the train without being fully traceable. This isn’t very nice if you are a normal citizen in a democracy, but becomes quickly dangerous if you are member of a minority group in a country governed by the nationalist far right or an authoritarian government.

      • Kajika@lemmy.mlEnglish
        4 days

        Passkey is barely implemented, seriously we have GPG keys or ssh keys and big tech refuses to implement at least that. Instead they are pushing for their Product™ to sell.

        Hardware solution could be nice but the market is stacked against any nice solution: I way a key I can backup, even emulate if I want too (having a purely digital copy). I don’t see the issue with ssh key in general.

          • Ooops@feddit.org
            4 days

            I want a key I can backup, even emulate if I want too

            This actually seems possible… https://codeberg.org/r4gus/PassKeeZ

            Also keepassXC works with passkeys for quite some time.

          • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org
            3 days

            One technical alternative for Linux users is to use for example the pass program, which stores via GnuPG keys, and put the key on a GnuPG SmartCard. This enables a kind of 2FA on the user side (one needs the SmartCard and its PIN).

            Another alternative would be KeePassX and YubiKey.

            Another password and TOTP, which can be required on the service side.

            This does not fully protect against phishing but is very helpful for using unique strong passwords.

            I do not think the phishing protection is worth additional privacy erosion. Privacy is not really a nice-to-have. Due to targeted advertising (see the Cambridge Analytica example), loss of privacy is turning into a real threat for our democracy.

            • magguzu@lemmy.pt
              4 days

              Honestly the original post arguing against them makes very valid points that I wasn’t expecting to read to the end, even if they probably lost 90%+ of readers with the length that could have been cut down.

              Speaking as a GrapheneOS and Linux user, the possibility of remote attestation to stop me from doing so is a legitimately shitty thought.

              Been quite a fan of the convenience though as I just hate having to keep my phone on me all the time. So I’m torn, but will continue using them at least until a whiff of big tech buffoonery comes around.

              Edit: Ricky’s arguments seem sound but I think you can also tack on “for now” to all of them. They also work for Apple so worth mentioning that potential conflict of interest/bias. I’d be curious of GrapheneOS’s take.

                • IanTwenty@piefed.socialEnglish
                  4 days

                  I agree 100%, this post is not a full rebuttal and does not tackle the concerns directly:

                  • The character of the organisations in FIDO does not inspire confidence against lock-in or monopolistic behaviour
                  • The possibility of future attestation cutting out those on ‘unapproved’ software and hardware.

                  I agree parts of the tech are good, particularly the anti-phishing, anti-replay measures.

                  This post seems to say passkeys are in good hands so nothing can go wrong, but I don’t think that’s enough.

                • Zoutpeper@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  4 days

                  Not a single explanation of passkeys has managed to to convince me they are more secure than a password and MFA. All you need is access to someones phone. Before you needed a complex password and access to my phone.

                  The passkey also can’t be backed up or replaced like MFA tied to my phone if it should unexpectedly die.

                  Congrats we’ve reduced account access to a single point of failure?

                    • arty@feddit.org
                      4 days

                      Passkeys absolutely can be backed up

                    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
                      4 days

                      I swear most people have forgotten what TOTP was used for in the first place - two-factor auth to protect people re-using passwords getting hit by password breaches on other services, people using low complexity passwords, and to protect people’s breeched devices (e.g. computers getting viruses or malware or drive-by credential nabbers that give the attacker access to your credentials in some way). In short, to solve some poor security practices. 2FA via TOPT still solves all of those problems.

                      Passkeys fix a different problem. On their own as a technology they essentially just increase the quality of a password, while tying that password to a single device. So they fix the problems of re-used passwords, and unsophisticated passwords. But with many implementations they fall back to being single-factor auth - if a user has access to your device, they can use the passkey (with exceptions such as passkeys stored on a physical second-factor like a Yubikey that requires physical approval to use).

                      TOTP meanwhile requires two devices to be accessed by design.

                      As myself and most tech-aware users already use unique, sophisticated passwords - they don’t solve a problem for us.

                      However, if businesses allow passkeys as a simple password alternative, while still allowing TOTP as a second factor, I’d be happy to do so for critical access items (mostly banking). However, I’m not aware of this being the case for any common implementations in major businesses.

                      Passkeys are just ‘Yubikey without the Yubikey or physical approval’ - pointless to me. False sense of security even.

                        • IanTwenty@piefed.socialEnglish
                          4 days

                          Maybe one extra thing you are missing is passkeys are resistant (not proof) to phishing. The user returns an ‘assertion’ that:

                          uses the private key to digitally sign a challenge value from the server, together with contextual information such as the requesting origin

                          https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Authentication/Passkeys

                          It useless to pretend to be the bank as you’ll get an assertion from the user you can’t replay and the user’s passkey implementation should spot the origin is wrong and refuse to sign it anyway (as I understand it).

                            • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
                              3 days

                              Maybe? I’d say that TOTP is probably more ‘phishable’ than passkeys - but I doubt there are actual stats on it.

                              If an end-user is the kind of person that’s fooled by a fake bank website that is on the wrong domain with a sketchy certificate - and approve 2FA requests without much thought - then it is probably likely they’d be fooled by a fake bank website that says, “per our recent updates, [yesterday’s date] is the last date to switch to using an updated web browser. Our bank website is no longer compatible with this web browser, please open one of these browsers [list of any major browser useragent not identified as the current browser] and attempt login again”.

                              That could either completely bypass their pre-configured bank passkey with legacy login to the fake bank, or the attackers could just pushing them to configure a new passkey to the fake bank on the new browser (the attackers wouls set up a real passkey to the real bank in parallel, using the supplied credentials in the background).

                              There is certainly proof of concept and examples in the wild of significant cases of people being tricked into approving additional devices with passkeys.

                            • Ooops@feddit.org
                              4 days

                              Passkeys fix a different problem.

                              In my eyes the problem is that passkeys do not fix a problem. They just shift it to another layer…

                              I can backup a password however I like. I can backup a TOTP authenticator (or specifically the secret that works with every one of them) however I like.
                              I can not however backup a hardware device with my passkey.

                              And the websites supporting passkeys obviously know it and explicitly warn when you don’t have an alternative way of logging in configured as it’s possible that simple hardware damage or loss locks you out of your account. Thus the “fix for a problem” is now relegated to a shiny new way of conveniently pressing the button on a key instead of typing and remembering passwords, while the actual attack surface is still there but now sitting in alternative login/account recovery instead.

                                • arty@feddit.org
                                  4 days

                                  You can backup software passkey though

                                    • Ooops@feddit.org
                                      4 days

                                      Yes I can backup a software one. But that’s not the point. Passkeys are advertised as the future for common people as they eliminate the biggest issues: phishing.

                                      But then they don’t advise people to use software passkeys, back them up and keep them save. Instead they tell them to configure an alternative/recovery login alongside the passkey should it be lost or damaged.

                                      They take a security feature, instantly remove the additional security and make it into a “you don’t need to remember and type your password”-convenience thing. Yeah, great. A password manager could’ve already provided that convenience.

                                      So in the end those more technically-minded that will look at this and decide to use a software passkey so they can back it up will get some additional security they need much less (they are not the primary target group for phishing), and some convenience they already had (because they are already using a password manager).

                                      Passkeys aren’t controversial because they are bad. They aren’t. They are controversial because the actual way they are used makes zero sense for the purpose of added security. Which raises the question what the actual goal is.

                                • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
                                  4 days

                                  How do you phish someone’s TOTP?

                                    • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
                                      4 days

                                      If you’re asking that question you’re probably already at lower risk. Just think of scammers calling up your grandparents or something like that; they pretend to be Microsoft, ask for the user’s credentials, attempt to sign in, then ask for the user’s one time passcode. You can get more elaborate setups but that’s the gist.

                                        • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
                                          4 days

                                          Ah, I see. The point is no one can ask for your passkey, right?

                                            • RogueBanana@piefed.zipEnglish
                                              4 days

                                              Exactly, you can’t easily share the passkeys to anyone so it should be impossible without an exploit.

                                          • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
                                            4 days

                                            Fairly easily if you create a good replica of the original website the user is trying to log in to.
                                            In a lot of cases, even technically savvy people are not going to verify the URL.

                                              • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
                                                4 days

                                                I see. I use a password manager so it would probably not fill in the password or the TOTP and throw a red flag for me.

                                                  • libewa@feddit.org
                                                    4 days

                                                    That wouldn’t work with the iOS passwords app, since Autofill breaks all the time…

                                                      • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
                                                        4 days

                                                        Worksonmymachine.md

                                                      • IanTwenty@piefed.socialEnglish
                                                        4 days

                                                        The phishing attack could also try to convince you your bank had changed domains (hey we’ve been bought by Big Bank and will be moving your account to BigBank.com) and therefore not to expect your password manager to autofill (this is a stretch I know).

                                                        Passkeys are resistant to phishing as they cannot be replayed and your authenticator should refuse challenges from the wrong domain. Even if it did solve a challenge from bigbank.com it’s worthless as the origin is included in the returned challenge so cannot be used by the attackers on the real bank site.

                                                    • tuhriel@discuss.tchncs.de
                                                      4 days

                                                      Call them, say you are the bank and they have seen fraudulent transactions, and to restore the account they will send you a code which you have to tell them…

                                                      For the sms codes: it’s also pretty easy to copy/clone a sim

                                                      There is also the option of a MITM attack with a portal that forwards the login to the real login page and then cuts your connection and the MITM has the open session.

                                                      The good thing with passkeys is, there is nothing a fraudster can get from a user. You can’t forward your passkey via the phone, and MITM are much, much harder to pull off

                                                        • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
                                                          4 days

                                                          I was more referring to “authenticator” style codes. I dunno what else to call them. But you answered that as well.

                                                        • slazer2au@lemmy.worldEnglish
                                                          4 days

                                                          Evilnginx has existed for almost a decade to get totp codes.

                                                        • billwashere@lemmy.worldEnglish
                                                          3 days

                                                          No

                                                            • libewa@feddit.org
                                                              3 days

                                                              ok

                                                            Linux@lemmy.ml

                                                            linux@lemmy.ml

                                                            Subscribe from remote instance

                                                            Create post

                                                            Report community

                                                            Modlog
                                                            You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !linux@lemmy.ml

                                                            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                                            Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

                                                            Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word “Linux” in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

                                                            Rules

                                                            • Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
                                                            • No misinformation
                                                            • No NSFW content
                                                            • No hate speech, bigotry, etc

                                                            Related Communities

                                                            • !opensource@lemmy.ml
                                                            • !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
                                                            • !technology@lemmy.ml
                                                            • !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml

                                                            Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

                                                            Visibility: Public

                                                            This community is visible to everyone.

                                                            723 users / Day2.88K users / Week4.48K users / Month4.55K users / 6 months235 posts3.48K comments1 local subscriber68.1K subscribers
                                                            • BE: 1.0.0-beta.2
                                                            • Modlog
                                                            • Instances
                                                            • Docs
                                                            • Code
                                                            • join-lemmy.org