Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

31–40 of 182 posts

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

#31
I never saw that thing.

How does it work? For example I have Linux, Windows, iOS, Android devices and I want to use single HN account on those devices. How do I do that?

I think that anything other than email+password will confuse users and probably not worth to implement.

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

#32
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a practical standpoint, i dont really think it matters. The real threat 2fa auth solves is the fact people blame the site operator when they are hacked. 90% of the time it is due to reusing a password. The other 10% it is due to phishing. WebAuthn stops both. 2FA works not because it adds another factor, but because it removes choice from the user so they can't screw it up.

Interesting take on 2FA. The user not being able to screw up is of course important, but the second factor (something you have) works primarily because it is tied to something physical and therefore local to the user, which is not subject to remote attacks.

Here's the concept. Perhaps we have the order wrong. Maybe the physical factor should be the primary factor. The second factor should never be transmitted, but rather is used to unlock the physical factor.

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

#33
post #7

I'm currently looking into deploying hardware keys for some of our users at work (mostly through Microsoft SSO which is FIDO2 passwordless), and one of the roadblock on our end is the inability to define our own minimum requirements for the PIN. Educating our users about the importance of using a secure PIN is indeed a priority, but it would be nice from a security standpoint of we could enforce some policies on our…

Why do you require a pin at all? The point of hardware keys is to protect against online takeover. Physical access is usually game over either way

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).

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

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, having a hardware key is not a real barrier to use.

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.

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

#36

I use it everywhere I can for the stuff I host. With how even banks rely on SMS for 2FA these days, I think this stuff just isn't on most companies' radars. It adds some convenience but until whoever is in charge of setting out a road map is convinced this is useful or something users may want, there's little benefit to spending the dev time. I use my phone for this stuff because Linux doesn't really support this stu…

I'm honestly considering changing banks because my bank only supports SMS 2FA, and it triggers for every login. They need to at least adopt old school TOTP. In 2023, relying on SMS feels irresponsible for a side project let alone a bank.

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

#37

I never saw that thing. How does it work? For example I have Linux, Windows, iOS, Android devices and I want to use single HN account on those devices. How do I do that? I think that anything other than email+password will confuse users and probably not worth to implement.

https://webauthn.io/

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/identity-...

Exciting that another one of my tech dreams is coming true!

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

#38
Passkeys is a new FIDO standard that will let the private keystore be backed by the cloud. It was added to WebAuthn fairly recently. Having keys tied to specific physical devices was a terrible & frustratingly limited scheme that never had any hope. Now that there's something a little bit looser, there's some small hope WebAuthn starts to become interesting & viable. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/webauthn-conditional-ui/

Another huge challenge is that there are so very many ways for developers to use this tech. There are a truly humbling amount of scenarios & flows one can set-up. Many of the most direct paths continue to have the user already set up an account via regular email/password, so users still end up doing the same account management anyways. I'm missing the link to the wonderful wonderful guide I spent a couple commute rides reading, but it was one of the longest most technical pieces I've read in quite a while. "Introducing the WebAuthn API" is perhaps a reasonably ok substitute. https://medium.com/webauthnworks/introduction-to-webauthn-ap...

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

#39
post #7

I'm currently looking into deploying hardware keys for some of our users at work (mostly through Microsoft SSO which is FIDO2 passwordless), and one of the roadblock on our end is the inability to define our own minimum requirements for the PIN. Educating our users about the importance of using a secure PIN is indeed a priority, but it would be nice from a security standpoint of we could enforce some policies on our…

> it would be nice from a security standpoint of we could enforce some policies on our end to at least eliminate the possibility of settings some obviously weak PIN (0000, 1234, etc)

If your security model requires you retaining that level of control over your user's device security, MDM seems like the only option.

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

#40
post #7

I'm currently looking into deploying hardware keys for some of our users at work (mostly through Microsoft SSO which is FIDO2 passwordless), and one of the roadblock on our end is the inability to define our own minimum requirements for the PIN. Educating our users about the importance of using a secure PIN is indeed a priority, but it would be nice from a security standpoint of we could enforce some policies on our…

Why do you require a pin at all? The point of hardware keys is to protect against online takeover. Physical access is usually game over either way

Because Microsoft's implementation is incredibly boneheaded, and doesn't allow the Google-style mechanism of username+password+Yubikey. They only support U2F/Webauthn as an alternative to a password.

I assume Microsoft is hoping to make Windows the main Webauthn provider out there, to tie online identities into the Windows login process for easier tracking/advertising.

Post reply on HN