“Passkeys,” the secure authentication mechanism built to replace passwords, are getting more portable and easier for organizations to implement thanks to new initiatives the FIDO Alliance announced on Monday.
If the passkeys aren’t managed by your devices fully offline then you’re just deeper into being hostage to a corporation.
The lock-in effect of passkeys is something that this protocol aims to solve though. The “only managed by your device” is what keeps us locked in, if there is no solution to export and import it on another device.
The protocol aims to make it easy to import and export passkeys so you can switch to a different provider. This way you won’t be stuck if you create passkeys e.g. on an Apple device and want to switch to e.g. Bitwarden or an offline password manager like KeyPassXC
The specifications are significant for a few reasons. CXP was created for passkeys and is meant to address a longstanding criticism that passkeys could contribute to user lock-in by making it prohibitively difficult for people to move between operating system vendors and types of devices. […] CXP aims to standardize the technical process for securely transferring them between platforms so users are free […].
That’s between platforms though. I like my stuff self-managed. Unless it provenly works with full offline solutions I’ll remain sceptical.
I like my stuff self-managed.
Bitwarden / Vaultwarden is a popular available working solution for self-hosting and self-managing passkeys (as well as passwords).
And who forces all the corps to correctly implement that protocol? Getting you locked in is in all of their interests, after all.
I think it‘s fair to remain skeptical but the big organizations were part of the development, so there seems to be some interest. And it‘s not always in their interest to lock users in, when it also prevents users from switching to their platform.
Development of technical standards can often be a fraught bureaucratic process, but the creation of CXP seems to have been positive and collaborative. Researchers from the password managers 1Password, Bitwarden, Dashlane, NordPass, and Enpass all worked on CXP, as did those from the identity providers Okta as well as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, and SK Telecom.
Y’all here talking so smart ignore another thing - the more complex your solutions are, the deeper you are into being hostage to everyone capable of making the effort to own you.
Don’t wanna be hostage - don’t use corporate and cloud services for things you need more than a bus ticket.
You are being gaslighted to think today’s problems can be solved by more complexity. In fact the future is in generalizing and simplifying what exists. I’m optimistic over a few projects, some of which already work, and some of which are in alpha.
That’s a great way to lose access if your device gets lost, stolen, or destroyed. Which is why I’m against and will continue to be against forcing 2FA and MFA solutions onto people. I don’t want this, services don’t care if we’re locked out which is why they’re happy to force this shit onto people.
Well yeah, that is true. Security and convenience are usually at odds… MFA has place, unless you don’t mind some guy from russia access your online bank account ; but I definitely wouldn’t use it on all my accounts.
Yeah and since Online bank accounts can also almost always be reset if you lose the 2FA/MFA key by calling customer support, or going to your bank and speaking with themt in person, there’s almost no risk of losing access completely. It’s a service you have access to because you’re you. Something that isn’t the case with Reddit, Github, Lemmy accounts, or Masotodon. I’m not able to regain access after losing those 2FA solutions by virtue of being myself, they treat you just like the attacker in those cases. Really not worth it there, both since what is being protected isn’t worth it, and the risk far outweighs it.
