Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

news.ycombinator.com

161–170 of 182 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

#161

I'm glad it's slow, the current "solution" to tie your credentials to a device that can be lost, stolen, or broken with the option to sync them to a cloud controlled by big tech companies is abhorrent. And adding more devices is not the answer either.

You're listing only the negative aspects, but in truth it's all tradeoffs. What you get is fishing-resistant authentication, that's pretty easy to use. > And adding more devices is not the answer either. Why not? What's your ideal authentication solution? Two things I'd love to see: Something like Mozilla Persona, and maybe SSH key authentication in the browser. No idea how I'd manage and back up my key though. Don't…

> Two things I'd love to see: Something like Mozilla Persona [...]

Passkeys is relatively close to being a proper successor to Mozilla Persona. The UX isn't quite as polished as Mozilla Persona felt, but Passkeys is a multi-vendor coalition with Apple, Google, and Microsoft all throwing marketing weight behind it, so maybe the UX will never quite be perfect due to the intersection of all that, but the underlying tech is really close to what Mozilla Persona proposed, in a long, round-about away.

Re: Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

#162
post #143
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

recovery is easy. i'm a customer of all these companies so i have faith i'll be able to convince them i'm me if it comes to that. and i keep a handful of hardware keys to make self-recovery easier if i lose or break one. most of my practices are to mitigate risks i personally know how to mitigate, and doing it while causing myself as little headache as possible. being able to auth using touch id on my personal laptop…

So I assume you do not consider, say, your Github or Google account to be high-value? Plenty of tech companies have simply started to refuse recovery if you lose all your 2FA keys.

What do you do without 2fa if your account is taken over? I’m trading that risk for something more in my control. Yeah it would suck if I lost all my hardware keys, my laptop, and paper backup codes, and additionally I couldn’t get support from anyone.

Re: Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

#163
post #59
post #48

What does WebAuthn on Firefox on Linux look like? I got the impression it was impossible to use without a blessed bigco device and browser.

You can use it with Chromium on Linux, but there's two parts to WebAuthn: the user-agent, and the client device/software that holds the key. So, WebAuthn shows you a QR code which you can scan. That happens on the user agent when you try to log in. It's no different than Windows. But the client software is a bit different. The client software scans the QR code and then provides proof you're the user you claim to be (…

Thank you for the explainer. From a lot of what I read it seemed like you had to use an Apple/Google/MS keychain but I'm glad that's not the case.

Re: Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

#164
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of having a physical device you own act as a second factor, you are now vendor-locked to a proprietary authentication solution for the entire login process. No thank you! The entire point of two-factor authentication is to have, well, two factors: something you know and something you have . Using the PC itself as token was already problematic enough as it has a massive code base and runs all sorts of untru…

I didn't like how unmanageable physical devices were. If I could make a backup of those keys, I would have been happy with physical devices. But every time I make an account somewhere, I have to go add devices in triplicate? Ugh it was such an abysmal terrible experience. Physical devices are just too unreliable & too constrained as systems. Passkeys, to my knowledge, are an extension of FIDO Alliance standards. My h…

> My hope is that one can bring your own provider.

Everyone always says this, but it's always just a hope. And given the history of the FIDO Alliance standards on backing up keys, and given the players involved, I think it's reasonable to say that people just straight-up should not use passkeys until it's not a "hope" and backup/migration actually works as part of the standard itself.

Note that this doesn't mean:

- Migration is allowed but not mandated. Migration must be built into the standard or else vendors will eventually introduce lock-in in the future under the guise of security. It can not be optional.

- Migration is allowed through special contracts using some locked-down behind-the-scenes company-to-company transfer. I need to be able to sit down on my Linux computer with an Open Source piece of software that I compiled and I need to be able to move the keys from my iCloud account to that software.

I want to assume good faith from the FIDO Alliance standards, but some of the messaging around this has been straight-up deceptive. 1Password advertised itself as solving the portability problem, but last I checked it doesn't. 1Password is device agnostic but does not allow exporting your passkey information to another account.

I've run into so many scenarios where advocates straight-up misrepresent what portability means that I now give really specific tests instead, because otherwise the conversation doesn't go anywhere. I keep running into advocates that tell me "it's usable today" and in the same breath tell me "it's early days, we'll get to the portability stuff later."

So the specific criteria is: if I can't compile my own software on a Linux computer and move my "keys" or whatever authentication mechanism is tied to that account into that software as a single operation without logging into and re-validating every single account individually or adding another authentication mechanism to each account, then it's not portable and I'm not using it. It needs to specifically allow for that, and there needs to be a real working Open Source project that I can run today that allows it. Otherwise, it's not actually portable today. Furthermore, if I do compile my own software and move in those keys and then I go to log into a website and a service refuses to let me log in because I've failed a hardware attestation check and I need to use an Apple device to log in -- then it's not portable. That cannot be something that the spec allows or encourages, or it's not actually portable.

But (and as always, I would be thrilled to be proven wrong about this) the spec itself allows for that kind of behavior with hardware attestation with basically no downside other than a "please be a nice company and don't do this" warning, and noise from the FIDO Alliance advocates I've seen online is that they don't want to mandate a specific migration format in the spec or make migration a requirement for companies that want to advertise that they implement Passkey; they want to leave that process up to individual companies under the "hope" that those companies will do the right thing.

I'm not just not adopting Passkeys, I'm actively discouraging adoption of the standard until that's fixed. I'm not signing into a locked-down ecosystem under the hope that it might become more open later in the future, maybe. There's a version of Passkeys that I would be excited about and that I would build support into my projects for, but it's not the version that exists today.

Re: Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

#165
post #146
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Microsoft's implementation of FIDO2 is passwordless, you NEED to use a PIN, which is the "something you know" part, the key being "something you have". And if the PIN is complex enough, bruteforcing or guessing won't work as I believe the default behavior is to wipe the secure element storage after 8 incorrect attempts (with 3 attempts per key being initialized at a time).

Those bruteforce protections aren't really worth a lot in practice. If you have physical access to the device, you will eventually be able to find a way to glitch it - as things like Cellebrite have already proven for the iPhone.

Is there any demonstrated case where someone was able to exfiltrate secrets from a Yubikey secure element?

Re: Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

#166
Portability is still an unsolved problem, no matter how often FIDO Advocates say that it's solved (no 1Password is not actually portable, migration still isn't built into the spec as far as I can tell).

I'm always happy to be proven wrong with this. Let me know if I can today (not maybe in the future, but right now) pull down an Open Source codebase onto my Linux computer, compile it myself without submitting some kind of validation check to a 3rd-party that will sign the code, and then batch export from an iPhone/iCloud account into that program so I can use it as provider without individually signing into any of those accounts.

If not, then it's not portable. And that's why people (at the very least people like me) aren't using it, because it's transparently an opportunity to increase vendor lock-in and to allow services to dictate that I can only log into previously client-agnostic accounts using a small set of proprietary platforms. I know that's not the intention of the FIDO Alliance, but their intention doesn't matter if the end result is the same.

Passwords do legitimately have a ton of problems and there is a theoretical version of Passkeys that would be amazing that I would be praising if it existed today. It's not that the idea is bad, there are changes to the standard that could be made that would make this good -- some of them would be controversial, some of them would make security purists upset. We'd need to have a conversation about what hardware attestation is actually going to be used for on a mass-market. But it could happen, it's not that passkeys are inherently bad.

But you will have to drag me kicking and screaming away from a format that is client-agnostic and inherently portable into an authentication mechanism that trivially enables vendor lock-in. Don't tell me about what companies might do in the future, the companies launched products in the present that don't support migration. Fix that, and then I'll listen to conversations about how Passkey/WebAuthn is better.

Re: Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really only see the negatives here. This solution offers me nothing over my password manager other that way less control over my own stuff, more ways to be locked out of my accounts, with the slightly added benefit that I don't have to worry about a sites shitty security practices. > What's your ideal authentication solution? I've said before as soon as passkeys can be managed offline and aren't tied to devices I'l…

It seems that they are set up to be like this already. At least Chrome+Android treat these passkeys like any password and they can be synced and accessed via API. I already see my passkeys in Chrome btw. https://developers.google.com/identity/passkeys/supported-en... This sounds pretty good to me, this is therefore like a regular old password except it's a cryptographic key that I don't have to remember and it's secu…

> It seems that they are set up to be like this already. At least Chrome+Android treat these passkeys like any password and they can be synced and accessed via API.

That same link shows that not only is this unsupported on Linux, there are no plans to support it on Chrome Linux. That's a far cry from "like any password".

If it's just an API, is the issue that there needs to be a Linux provider that offers that API? Are there plans to work with the community to build one? Is that Linux provider going to run on custom kernels, or will it only run on a signed Ubuntu image?

As it stands today, I actually can't use Chrome's WebAuthn implementation on any of computers except through its back-up "use your phone" method, which is a lot more inconvenient. And Google is telling me it has no plans to support my computers. Meanwhile, if someone uses passwords, I can tell them to switch to Linux and I don't need to provide the caveat that they won't be able to log into any of their accounts now without using a phone.

Re: Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is awesome, but worthless, if others don‘t follow.

Well all the major browsers are on board—it’s really in the hands of the dev/product community now.

Ok, i thought that only Apple uses biometric ID. Then: it‘s just awesome.

Re: Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposite. It's a barrier because most users don't have one.

…and yet most users are browsing using a device which itself contains a hardware key… and thus it is not a barrier.

What if I don't like viewing web pages on a phone?

Re: Ask HN: Why is WebAuthn so slow to take off?

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also now your Windows Hello PIN and your screen unlock PIN on Android will be your master password to all websites. That's a huge new risk for real people. On Windows they don't even bother making a password option which could at least imply that a longer PIN is possible. Windows also asks for the same everytime which strongly encourages making it short. Although I suppose nobody cares because isn't your PIN already…

The PINs protect a hardware enclave full of cryptographic keys. The PIN never leaves the hardware device it was input into. (It's an equivalent to the button on a Yubikey or something of that nature and there is a reason that PINs are lumped into the same settings as biometric unlocks like Touch ID and Face ID.) It's an intelligent trade-off, of course, in threat models that involve access to the physical device for…

Yes I was thinking of the theft scenario, for remote usecases it is definitely safer. I think webauthn could be great for 2fa without phones. But there are important things missing. For example the google authenticator app has an established way to backup and sync now. There is no such manual backup and sync possibility for Windows Hello passkeys. It's all a bit new now. I suppose as a website owner I would have to let people register multiple passkeys and then the user only has to have one of them to successfully log in. Hm it might be okay. And of course Chrome already added sync support for their passkeys but you can't rely on everyone using Chrome.
Post reply on HN