• NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Someone on slashdot correctly pointed out that these are only single factor on the server end. You enter a pin to unlock the device, the server can check if the device says you unlocked it, but there is no sending a second factor to the server. If a device was hacked to get the keys, or just says to the server that you presented a pin but didn’t really, the server has no clue. Passkey + TOTP would be multi factor on the server side.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      TOTP generated on the same device as the passkey is not a secondary factor. It will have been compromised together with the passkey.

      For passkeys, the secondary factors are used to access the passkey vault, not auth to the server. And these secondary factors should be a master password, biometrics, or physical keys. TOTP and SMS are out.

      • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand how it works, but again, it is not two factors being used to authenticate to the server.

        It is a single factor being used to access the vault. The server has no way of confirming this actually happened, the device just tells the server it has happened. A single factor is then used for authentication. This seems especially worth knowing since most cell phones deliberately weaken the security by sharing them between devices.

        Passkeys would preferably not be stored on the same device as a secondary factor used for authentication. Hardware tokens have supported them for years at this point, they can also hold TOTP keys instead.

        • 0xD@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure I follow you - if someone can compromise the key material on my phone that is protected by a different factor, then it doesn’t matter whether the 2FA is server-side or not, it’s compromised either way.

          • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If they compromise key material on your phone they still cannot get into whatever you are authenticating to, because it uses a completely separate factor that should not be on your phone.

            • ghterve@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              It seems like you are trying to protect against a compromise of the user’s device. But if their device is compromised then their session is compromised after auth anyway and you aren’t solving much with extra auth factors.

              • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You’re assuming that the passkey is on their phone and the phone is compromised. Passkeys can also be stored in password managers, or hardware tokens, or people’s iCloud or Google accounts. And if someone’s device is compromised, they have keys to everything even if the user never logs into those services to grab session data. If someone compromises my password vault they get passwords, but not TOTP keys. If they compromise my vault that is holding passkeys, that is all they need.

                I am only pointing out that a single factor is all that is sent to the sever, with most no longer allowing a secondary factor for authentication, and all of the security is all dependent on the client-side now.

  • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re still entering the password or pin for your password manager. I genuinely do not see how this is better. It’s simply an alternative, not an improvement.

    • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. Password managers are, generally speaking, far more security conscious than the average website. I’d rather send a password to my password manager a couple times a day than send passwords to every website I interact with.

      2. One click to confirm vs. 2-3 to autofill. Tiny gains in speed 🤷‍♀️ If you make a password manager even slightly more convenient than just using gregspassword123 for everything, you can onboard more normies.

      • Lem453@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most people that have password managers are already using different passwords for each website. Usually randomly generated. What’s the difference between that and a passkey?

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The secret key pair of a passkey is never transmitted over the internet. Even if somebody snoops the authentication, they will not be able to reproduce the secret key to login in the future.

          Think of it just like SSH public and private keys.

          Normal passwords, are typically provided at login time, and get transmitted, relying on HTTPS to keep them secure, if somebody could observe the authentication, they could reproduce the password later.

          (Yes someone could hash the password client side and send over the output… But that’s extra work and not guaranteed)

          • towerful@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Client side hashing of a password just makes the hashed result the password, as far as security is concerned.
            Unless there is some back-and-forth with the server providing a one-time-use salt or something to make each submission of the password unique and only valid once, at which point that might get snooped as well.
            Better off relying on client certificates if you are that concerned

            • linearchaos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Passkey’s approach is actually relatively close to client side certificates. It’s just in a form that is compatible with using a password manager. From the user standpoint once everything supports it properly, logins become relatively transparent and man-in-the-middle is pretty effectively mitigated. The other upside is of course unless you’re hosting your own stuff, no one supports client side certificates. This is an opportunity for all the big players to actually push people into better security.

    • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t have to memorize a ton of passwords for multiple sites which helps prevent password reuse. Whatever you use to decrypt your passkey or password is not transported over the network.

      It’s not foolproof of course but it’s a huge improvement.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Except passkeys are an Open Authentication standard from the FIDO alliance. Soooooo, not from a corporation.

      https://fidoalliance.org/passkeys/

      You can use passkeys in KeePassXC, if I understand correctly.

      They are the equivalent of using a hardware key like YubiKey or SoloKey, except the passkey is stored on your phone/PC instead of a USB thumbstick.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        still no reason to trust google with this.

        they have hijacked and dominated open source software quite a bit in the past.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Except Google was only mentioned in terms of whether or not they support it.

          You’re commenting on an article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization dedicated to fighting for internet and digital freedoms, about an open standard that has only just begun being implemented widely.

          Look, I hate corpos as much as anyone, but please let’s please tone down the alarmism.