On this episode of The Vergecast, we figure out passkeys once and for all.

Passkeys: how do they work? No, like, seriously. It’s clear that the industry is increasingly betting on passkeys as a replacement for passwords, a way to use the internet that is both more secure and more user-friendly. But for all that upside, it’s not always clear how we, the normal human users, are supposed to use passkeys. You’re telling me it’s just a thing… that lives on my phone? What if I lose my phone? What if you steal my phone?

  • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
    404·
    9 months ago

    We shouldn’t be getting rid of passwords, or one time passwords, or two factor authentication, or single use codes. The point of security is overlapping features is what brings convenience and deterrence.

    • Spotlight7573@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      9 months ago

      It’s probably overkill for most people but I would love to have a system that lets me choose what combination of factors together work to login rather than just ‘password and something else’. Something like A,B,C are on the account and you can use A+B or B+C to login. It’d be great for those who don’t necessarily want to trust SMS-based one-time passwords (due to SIM swapping, theft, etc) if we could require something else along with it.

      That said, the way passkeys are typically used satisfy multiple factors at once:

      Password to unlock your password database that stores your passkey: something you know, the password + something you have, the database

      Biometric to unlock your phone that has your passkey: something you are, fingerprint or face + something you have, the phone

      • scorpionix@feddit.deEnglish
        14·
        9 months ago

        Forget about biometrics, they are way too insecure.

        Our cameras have reached a stage where we can replicate fingerprints from photos. ‘What you are’ is useless when we leave part of us everywhere. And furthermore, in parts of the world, authorities can force you to unlock your device with biometrics but not with passwords.

        • frezikEnglish
          101·
          9 months ago

          Biometrics can be fine when they are layered on top of other authentication methods.

          • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            9 months ago

            Exactly. See my reply in another thread where I describe a “person trap” that I used to go through to get into a secure facility. Its biometric check analyzed the geometry of your entire hand. It wasn’t just a fingerprint scanner.

          • scorpionix@feddit.deEnglish
            21·
            9 months ago

            I strongly disagree. That’s like using MD5 and saying ‘It’s OK, we use SHA256 down the line’. Information encrypted with it might as well be in plain text.

            • frezikEnglish
              61·
              9 months ago

              That’s not how that works. If you were using MD5 and then immediately SHA256 the output and not using it for anything else, that would be fine. You’re not accomplishing much in this specific case, but it’d be fine.

              When you layer security, the attacker has to pull back each layer. You don’t rely on any singular layer. If the attacker needs biometrics AND a code AND a physical key, that’s very good security.

        • Spotlight7573@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          9 months ago

          For many people it works well as a trade-off between security and convenience. It may not be for everyone though and that’s okay. Nothing stops you from using a password/passcode to secure your passkey instead.

      • shortwavesurfer@monero.townEnglish
        131·
        9 months ago

        SMS second factor is so bad! The really dumb thing in my opinion is the place that uses SMS to factor the most is banks. Now how dumb is that?

        • Spotlight7573@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          9 months ago

          Banks are certainly behind the times and ‘bank-grade security’ is a joke in terms of what authentication methods they offer. I understand that they are slow to change anything though.

          • shortwavesurfer@monero.townEnglish
            22·
            9 months ago

            My crypto wallet is more secure than my bank because I hold the keys myself and I am not nearly as large a target as a bank. Is it better to go after one person’s money or one million people’s money?

    • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      9 months ago

      Years ago I worked for a company whose servers were in a highly secure facility. I had to pass through a “person trap” to get in, which required three independent things to get through: something you have, something you know, and something you are.

      Imagine a booth about the size of a phone booth, with doors on both sides. To open the outer door you need a card key. Once inside the outer door closes. To open the inner door you need to put your hand on a hand scanner, then enter a PIN. Only then will the inner door unlock and let you inside. I was told that the booth also weighed you and would refuse to let you through if your weight was something like 10% different from your last pass through. That was to prevent other people from piggybacking through with you.

      Lots of people think that’s all overkill until I explain that it’s all to ensure an authorized person, and nobody else, could get through. A bad actor could steal my card key & might guess my PIN, but getting around my hand scan & weight would be extremely difficult.

      The closer we get to this sort of multi-layer authentication with websites the happier I am. I want my bank account, etc. protected just as well as that data center…