Thread

I don't like passkeys

853 points · 819 comments · ethanhawksley

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

a2tech · 1789734496 · focus · HN ↗
They’re bad and I wish places would stop being so aggressive about them (I’m looking at you Amazon and PayPal)
1. Finnucane · 1789736237 · focus · HN ↗
  Asking Amazon and Paypal to not do something bad is a big ask.
junaru · 1789734669 · focus · HN ↗
They exist for sole purpose companies can just shoot the "we have been hacked, but worry not your 'passwords' have not been leaked" email.
It's entirely one sided solution.
1. cbarrick · 1789735186 · focus · HN ↗
  But they could always do that with regular passwords.
  Like, no company should be storing anything but a salted hash of their users' passwords.
kenrick95 · 1789734684 · focus · HN ↗
Passkeys have a marketing problem where no one is able to describe simply what it is without having to use technical jargon. There's also the problem where each OS tries too hard in pushing this to the face of end-user
1. etatester · 1789735038 · focus · HN ↗
  It's a key, what else do non-technical people need to know?
  Ironically on macOS we used to have an app called Keychain which unfortunately was effectively renamed to Passwords for non-technical users.
  1. paulryanrogers · 1789735295 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a digital key.
    Unlike physical objects they may reside in a TPM, a software vault, an export/backup, or any combination thereof. You may or may not be able to recover or migrate them, depending on where/how they were made.
    Therefore you may need multiple per service, or maybe not. Services which only allow one may end up locking you out with no recourse. You get to find out.
    None of this is obvious or self explanatory to normies.
    kskdkwkdkwk · 1789736240 · focus · HN ↗
    Probably because these caveats and weird behaviours are platform-dependent, not really the passkey’s fault.
    Passkeys really are not any more difficult to explain than 2-factor authentication. Anyone who’s currently been able to actually create an Apple or Google account and successfully navigate their devices up to a passkey screen will be able to grok how it works.
    People around here really ought to stop thinking users are complete idiots. Hell, you don’t even to scroll that far to read people calling users “normies” for crying out loud. What is this? High school?
    alt227 · 1789740598 · focus · HN ↗
    You obviously dont have to deal with anybody who doesnt know how or want to use computers.
    paulryanrogers · 1789743612 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you know how many Google and Apple accounts my boomer parents have?
    Roughly one per smart-phone that they've ever used. They don't know the passwords or even the email address of any of them, not even the latest.
    etatester · 1789746837 · focus · HN ↗
    Tell me how passkeys makes this any worse. If one's digital life is a mess, there's no magic solution to it.
    paulryanrogers · 1789767433 · focus · HN ↗
    Arguably Yubikey and similar are better. Even vanilla passwords are at least understood by my parents, despite their confusion over account proliferation. Passkeys are a step backward for them, even more so in light of account confusion.
    cpburns2009 · 1789744158 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't care about the theoretical sufficiently advanced keypass implementation that works perfectly. I want to know about the half baked ones in the real world that I'll have to deal with.
    etatester · 1789746683 · focus · HN ↗
    That's false. It's a digital key and it doesn't matter where it's stored. My key is on iCloud and it can be unlocked with my many recovery methods and contacts <a href="https://support.apple.com/en-us/102641" rel="nofollow">https://support.apple.com/en-us/102641
    As for normies, passkeys or passwords it doesn't make a difference. Either you have people who use love1969 everywhere or those who constantly lose their passwords.
    All passkeys accounts for normies require an email or phone number, which is what you can use to recover a password or passkey exactly the same way.
    paulryanrogers · 1789767329 · focus · HN ↗
    Where passkeys are stored is as important as where physical keys are stored
  2. arwineap · 1789735369 · focus · HN ↗
    The keychain and passwords app are separate and keychain still exists
    I always operated under the assumption that the passwords app was just a more casual view into the keychain
    Maybe that's a bad assumption
    joombaga · 1789736715 · focus · HN ↗
    They're separate stores. I was under the same assumption until I tried to use `security` to get a saved password. It doesn't work, and as far as I know there is no CLI for the Passwords app's store.
  3. lezojeda · 1789736032 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
2. ryan-duve · 1789735140 · focus · HN ↗
  > Passkeys are passwords your second device makes/types for you, without you ever seeing it.
  My bigger problem with passkeys is how there's no universal way to register more than one device (in case the first one is lost).
  1. blackdahlia313 · 1789735997 · focus · HN ↗
    Proton Pass. I moved to it and love it.
    malfist · 1789737047 · focus · HN ↗
    Proton Pass hardly meets the bar of "universal way to register more than one device"
    Proton Pass is a specific way to do that, but not a universal way. Bitwarden can't use proton pass to move keys around, google can't, firefox can't.
  2. [deleted] · 1789736303 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  3. jmbwell · 1789739622 · focus · HN ↗
    This burden is on the site using passkeys. There should be some equivalent of “My Account > Security > Passkeys > Add Passkey.” There often isn’t, which is an incomplete implementation. And yes it’s frustrating.
    account42 · 1789742130 · focus · HN ↗
    Sites didn't need to do anything special for this use case with passwords so it is a passkey problem.
    alienbaby · 1789746815 · focus · HN ↗
    It doesn't matter whose problem it is, it shouldn't be there.
3. cfiggers · 1789735501 · focus · HN ↗
  Imagine a password, but it a) types itself for you and b) detects when it's being sent to an impostor site and blocks them from seeing itself, so it can't be phished.
  Tada, passkeys.
  1. rcxdude · 1789735686 · focus · HN ↗
    Cool, where are they stored?
    wolvoleo · 1789735831 · focus · HN ↗
    In a secure vault on your phone
    rcxdude · 1789736030 · focus · HN ↗
    Not always. And which vault? There can be multiple on a given device. This isn't some hypothetical 'mollify the user's worries' question, this is an important practical question of what do they need to worry about losing access to. Trust me when I say that most users I have talked to have absolutely no idea about this, and usually only find out when they've already lost them.
    mystifyingpoi · 1789736197 · focus · HN ↗
    So if I drop my phone to the toilet, I will forever lose access to everything? Since the vault is on my phone.
    faust201 · 1789742465 · focus · HN ↗
    A majority have more than one phone. Or at least they can get a new SIM card and sign into the iCloud account. Then all passkeys are synced from cloud.
    Yes, if you are edward snowden then not for you. For rest of us - it is useful
    caryme · 1789742924 · focus · HN ↗
    A majority have more than one phone?
    faust201 · 1789752926 · focus · HN ↗
    Or they have a laptop or tablet - even the cheapest one that has logged into Google or Apple. That way they can recover.
    chrystalkey · 1789743534 · focus · HN ↗
    Idk how much money you must be having, but all of my bubbles only ever go with one device
    faust201 · 1789751419 · focus · HN ↗
    this is ridiculous. I don't even have a bubble device. Run lineageos in a decent 2020 device moto G32 for €100.
    Yes, you can afford to host everything locally. Not everyone can.
    recursive · 1789744025 · focus · HN ↗
    This is crazy. I have one phone and zero iCloud. I don't think I'm that unusual.
    faust201 · 1789751244 · focus · HN ↗
    You are exaggerating. If the loss or lockdown is so bad then many would have stopped using any of icloud or google equivalent. People are able to depend on it. People are able to repair and use phones even when it falls into abyss.
    recursive · 1789754192 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, I mean yes. People for whom it works. Others never started.
    malfist · 1789737085 · focus · HN ↗
    How do I use it on my desktop or laptop then? What if I switch browsers on my phone? What if I get a new phone? What if I change from android to iOS or visa versa? What if I need to log into the site on my Wii U's browser?
    faust201 · 1789742386 · focus · HN ↗
    as long as you have one working device all will be OK. Either you scan the QR code shown by the website. or if you did login to Chrome with google account then desktop or laptop will just sign you -friction less. Same with iCloud account.
    If you browser vendor has implemented passkey then all good.
    Most things are built for the majority users. Most don't change. Most don't debate browser wars in hn. Life is like that.
    For Wii etc. You just scan the QR code shown in the TV interface. all just works.
    Yes, if you want 100% privacy and will do only your own dovecot server then it is not for you.
    Johnny555 · 1789743819 · focus · HN ↗
    You can let Apple sync your passkeys between devices using iCloud Keychain. Then you can create a passkey on one device and have it available on all of your devices.
    malfist · 1789744057 · focus · HN ↗
    Apple can sync to my wii u?
    Johnny555 · 1789748616 · focus · HN ↗
    I updated my answer to be more complete.
    makeitdouble · 1789752018 · focus · HN ↗
    Nothing wrong with your answer itself, but having to be Apple or Google is a PITA. These account are ultra critical already and you will want maximum security to access them.
    This means if you go on a trip somewhere you absolutely need two devices. If you kill your phone and want to buy another one ASAP, you wont be able to do anything with the new device until you can convince the platform it's you. With passkeys you're just SOL. Imagining if you needed a phone to get back from your trip - e.g. etickets, auth needed etc. - it becomes a nightmare scenario.
    A third party manager makes it easier, but it's a lot less usable that the first party ones.
    Reasonable people make different life choice, having to constantly think about backup strategies whenever I'm away from home would be so stress inducing to me.
    Johnny555 · 1789754610 · focus · HN ↗
    >This means if you go on a trip somewhere you absolutely need two devices
    If you want multi-device redundancy, you have to carry a second device of some type, it's hard to get around that. I almost always travel with an iPad in addition to my phone, so I have a second device.
    In addition, my wife (who travels with me so if my iPhone is stolen, hers might be too) is one of my Apple account recovery contacts, plus I've set my sister as an addtional recovery contact, so even if I'm out of the country and I have to activate a new iPhone, I can call her to help with the recovery. So all I have to do is find an Apple store and buy a new phone.
    I also carry a USB key tucked into my luggage with the recovery kit (encrypted) for 1Password so I can activate 1Password on any new device and have access to my passwords and whatever passkeys I don't have in iCloud.
    qlte · 1789798409 · focus · HN ↗
    > With passkeys you're just SOL.
    No more so than if you lose access to the device that's required for Google/Apple MFA prompts, neither of which use SMS and depend on a proprietary approval flow.
    If you lose your phone in 2026 while on a trip to Italy and try to enter your Gmail user/pass from your wallet, there's about a 100.00% chance you'll hit a "let's verify you're you" gate, that's been the case for 5+ years.
    With passkeys I'm not stuck clicking Yes in the Gmail app or typing in the numbers on Apple hardware, I can skip the Apple/Google specific MFA nonsense and keep the passkeys in Bitwarden where they sync seamlessly between devices.
    It feels truly liberating being able to skip MFA everywhere and login with 1 click, like a throwback to the golden age of using a password manager in 2010. Before passkeys it started to feel like I was spending 5% of my waking hours every day copying 6 digit codes from phone/email/TOTP after twiddling my thumbs for 15-30 seconds.
    wolvoleo · 1789888532 · focus · HN ↗
    I just don't use Google or Apple accounts for everything. I don't want my whole life in the hands of some big tech deciding how I should prove to them that I'm me.
    I did use Microsoft 365 (business version) for my email but they also decided I should use their MFA app so I left.
    cpburns2009 · 1789743908 · focus · HN ↗
    Great, what happens if I lose my phone?
    iamnothere · 1789737174 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    rcxdude · 1789737411 · focus · HN ↗
    If you're using a USB hardware token your knowledge of it is at least an order of magnitude better than the median user's. I know where my passkeys are stored, I don't know where my family member's passkeys are stored and neither do they. The same is true for most of my otherwise fairly technical co-workers.
    iamnothere · 1789742095 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    ampersandwhich · 1789758914 · focus · HN ↗
    Absolutely not. If that is required, I will do my damndest to only use implementations that deliberately lie about the hardware status. Your line of reasoning is dangerous.
    faust201 · 1789742175 · focus · HN ↗
    Then that family member does not worry like you do worry. The main point is assuming one can have a proper security for Google account - everything else becomes easy.
    The fearmongering of losing google account should stop. Yes, some people lose it. There are a larger proportion losing/getting pwned by repeat use. For the majority - just pressing the fingerprint to access an account (like amazon/eBay) via passkey is great.
    Fairly technical co-workers - I used to suggest them to buy USB security key few years ago. Now that same fairly technical some how has at least 2 devices with them - so they just skipped the USB security key need - and just use Google (in Android) or iPhone in Apple ecosystem. Everything just works.
    Yes, there will be a poor soul that may lost everything with only one device.
    iamnothere · 1789743484 · focus · HN ↗
    People keep their entire lives in cloud accounts these days. Their passwords, financial history, copies of important documents, baby photos, etc. Losing access to it is incredibly disruptive and may result in unrecoverable losses.
    It shouldn’t be this way, but it is.
    faust201 · 1789751121 · focus · HN ↗
    At the same time, I know so many people believing DIY raspberrypi based NAS and losing lots of data (thankfully they had cloud backups).
    Not everyone has access to server grade hardware.
    Aerroon · 1789747038 · focus · HN ↗
    >Then that family member does not worry like you do worry.
    Until they lose access to that account and then it becomes my problem to solve.
    faust201 · 1789751052 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a different issue. Not everyone has a data engineer - know it all as a family member.
    And you need to accept it works for millions.
    rcxdude · 1789757340 · focus · HN ↗
    Working for millions doesn't imply a good hit rate.
    faust201 · 1789804995 · focus · HN ↗
    My actual experience is people with passkey are fine. No more account take over. Mote over they like frictionless login.
    Yes there are few that used bitwarden and lost everything as their sync using syncthing failed.
    UltraSane · 1789742508 · focus · HN ↗
    The biggest issue with passkeys is that since most USB tokens that support them don't allow syncing the private key to a backup device you have to enroll ALL of them to every site that supports passkeys. This is annoying but it makes storing backups in secure offsite locations impractical.
    iamnothere · 1789743631 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    mrguyorama · 1789760357 · focus · HN ↗
    The entire problem with passkeys is that zero of the issues should have been a surprise, because it should have been part of the design discussion from the start, so the fact that it's not properly implemented before being forced on users says that either it's been done horrifically incompetently and nobody should trust it, or they internally found these concerns and ignored them which means this system is not at all meant to help us, so why is it being forced on us?
    EvanAnderson · 1789745153 · focus · HN ↗
    It's beyond annoying. It's creating needless toil that no "normies" will ever actually do.
    I'd love a hardware sold in multi-packs and "born" at the factory with identical internal device key encryption keys (DKEK). I'd love, even more, if a token just allowed you to "commission" new ones w/ a user-specified DKEK on first use.
    I'd use one token as a daily driver and store the other(s) in safe location(s), empty of my personal key material. (Or, if I can just commission a new token w/ my DKEK, store a printed copy of my DKEK in a safe location.)
    Give the token a mechanism to "type" a backup of its internal state, encrypted with the DKEK, as a USB HID keyboard. That gives me an easy way to backup the token each time I enroll a new website.
    If I lose my daily-driver token I just pull a spare from storage, import my last backup, and I'm up and running.
    That would kick ass. No "You just need to buy two tokens and enroll them in every website" bullshit.
    iamnothere · 1789747200 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    EvanAnderson · 1789748768 · focus · HN ↗
    I haven't used a FIDO2 token other than playing around with it on a Yubikey. There, at least, I have to have the PIN to unlock the Yubikey before I can use the FIDO2 credentials (if I'm remembering correctly).
    Are there hardware token implementations where mere possession of the token is all that's necessary to use the passkeys stored on it? That's incredibly stupid, and should have been disallowed by the standard, if that's the case.
    iamnothere · 1789749123 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    EvanAnderson · 1789754551 · focus · HN ↗
    I didn't realize PIN was optional.
    See my other comment re: the IT industry being fools.
    UltraSane · 1789752611 · focus · HN ↗
    That is how almost all standard FIDO2 tokens work. You just have to press the capacitive sensor when prompted. You can get fancier biometric tokens that require a fingerprint.
    EvanAnderson · 1789754502 · focus · HN ↗
    That's the stupidest thing ever.
    All this hullabaloo taking away user freedom to export keys and backup tokens but physical possession is all that's necessary to use it by default.
    We are a ship of fools, the IT industry.
    qmmmur · 1789750831 · focus · HN ↗
    in 1password
  2. flerchin · 1789737680 · focus · HN ↗
    But how do I type it into my new phone?
    vntok · 1789738779 · focus · HN ↗
    It depends.
    Are you part of the 99.99999% users of one of iOS+Apple or Androidlike+Google/Tencent or HarmonyOS+Huawei? If that's the case, you don't need to as the key is automagically saved by your OS' platform and synced with your new device.
    Otherwise, you're such an extreme outlier that you probably either know what you're doing or can find out by yourself, right?
    faust201 · 1789742522 · focus · HN ↗
    The point is people like this usually are arguing as they hate adopting new tech. And they hate FAANG. No way to convince them.
    dspillett · 1789743310 · focus · HN ↗
    > … users of one of … Google …? If that's the case, you don't need to as the key is automagically saved by your OS' platform and synced with your new device.
    This absolutely does not encourage confidence in me. We all know how easy it can be to get locked out of a Google account and have no way of getting back in unless you have enough clout to make a huge noise online so a human there pays attention instead of you being stuck in the 'ol support-bot-run-around loop. It doesn't happen often when you consider how many users there actually are out there, but the potential inconvenience is high enough that “fairly rare in the grand scheme of things” is still enough to be reason enough to be wary.
    Aerroon · 1789747376 · focus · HN ↗
    How does it get synced to my new device? Will Google charge me money because I'm using their cloud sync stuff? Are they going to charge me money like they do with "syncing pictures" (your phone starts telling you to do that, so you enable it and after a while it says you're out of space and need to pay $10 a month or 'you might lose your emails')?
    flerchin · 1789748386 · focus · HN ↗
    How can it be saved and synced without credentials? I'm in that overwhelming majority, but I don't grok how I can recover the account when my phone is lost/stolen/damaged. The answer appears to be, use another device that was already logged in?
  3. alt227 · 1789740558 · focus · HN ↗
    As others have pointed out, this is a terrible oversimplification which misses all the nuances which cause people headaches when using passkeys.
    To your point, I for example would add point c) - Is linked to the device you are using currently. If you want to use another device to log in you are in a world of complexity and pain.
4. Spide_r · 1789735983 · focus · HN ↗
  That's the main thing I wish was done better. There was barely any actual lead up from the perspective of an average person. Just a new unfamiliar flow on half of the login screens that they use.
  Sure, its explained. But not in a satisfactory way that would reach all users at their level.
  This is a bit of an exaggeration and out of proportion, but I think my ideal would be one of the big tech companies should have bought out something like a super bowl ad. Something that actually conveys the idea "hey, we know you've used passwords since you were able to type on a keyboard, but here's new technology that's better and here's why" in plain language that the average person can understand.
  Unfortunately, XKCD 2501 continues to be relevant. [1]
  [1] <a href="https://xkcd.com/2501/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/2501/
  1. Al-Khwarizmi · 1789737532 · focus · HN ↗
    The average person? I have a Master's and PhD in CS, code regularly, and have followed and used all the cool technologies from the days of gopher, telnet and Mosaic to crypto, and lately LLMs. And I still don't have a clear enough picture of passkeys to know really basic things like "what if we have a family computer but each wants to access their private accounts and keep the others from accessing?", "what do I need do to login from an airport computer?" or "what should I do if my phone is stolen?"
    If it's that unclear to me, I can't imagine how it can be to the average user.
    The way they explain them is atrociously unclear, borderline negligent for services that nag people to activate it for accounts where they may hold valuable data for their personal lives. And while I don't want to spend much time finding out the details as long as I have the option to decline them, I suppose if they can't explain it and convince people of its advantages, it's because it's just bad tech.
    alt227 · 1789740756 · focus · HN ↗
    I cant upvote you enough for this very concise explanation of passkeys pain points.
    johanyc · 1789830851 · focus · HN ↗
    > "what if we have a family Computer but each wants to access their private accounts and keep the others from accessing?"
    That's what OS level user accounts are for. Tbf
    > "what do Ineed do to login from an airport computer?" or "what should do if my phone is stolen?"
    Indeed I don't know the answers to these either if I wasn't syncing passkeys in 1password. Honestly we should educate people to use password managers more than any thing. It's also a smaller jump than to passkeys. Passkeys can be more of an advanced convenience feature after they get used to using password managers already.
5. lezojeda · 1789736005 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
6. mikepurvis · 1789739058 · focus · HN ↗
  Surely it's a pretty easy pitch to average Joe: Using a passkey takes the place of typing in a code they sent by text or email.
  That's a pain point in everyone's day that should make the benefit easy to understand.
  1. alt227 · 1789740712 · focus · HN ↗
    ok cool so when somebody logs into a site on their phone and sets up a passkey, then goes to their laptop and tried to log into the same account, how do you easily explain how to deal with this situation?
    kps · 1789744243 · focus · HN ↗
    You don't. A laptop might still be a general-purpose computer under the owner's control, and we discourage those.
    stetrain · 1789744460 · focus · HN ↗
    What I have seen is that the site gives you a QR code to scan with your phone.
7. jmbwell · 1789739383 · focus · HN ↗
  I tell people a website is like a payment terminal. Your device is like your debit card. A password is like a PIN on the card. A Passkey is like a chip on the card.
  Logging into a site with your device is like putting your card into the terminal. The site can ask for a password the way the terminal asks for a PIN, but if your device supports Passkeys, that’s like your card having a chip, and it’ll use that instead.
  So think of Passkeys like using a chip card.
  I dunno how well this analogy works down to the last detail but it has gotten it across to all the parents I’ve used it with
  1. dgunay · 1789742461 · focus · HN ↗
    Do most people understand why cards have a chip in them now?
    Telaneo · 1789791475 · focus · HN ↗
    Probably not. The magnetic strip was easy to explain (it contains some info the terminal checks), but it's also pretty easy to explain why skimming was a problem. Explaining how chips fixed that (signing keys and cryptography) is probably beyond a 30 second explanation with Joe Schmo.
  2. seirim · 1789742462 · focus · HN ↗
    Great analogy, am going to use that going forward, thank you.
8. dboreham · 1789742927 · focus · HN ↗
  As implemented they also lack conceptual integrity: you get them somehow (where are they?), and somehow you can use them (how, exactly?) but you can't enumerate them anywhere, see them, see where they came from and what they can do for you.
silon42 · 1789734689 · focus · HN ↗
Is there a reason why passkeys couldn't be used in "expire-periodically" mode?
1. pletnes · 1789734787 · focus · HN ↗
  Then how do you log in? Not all sites let you keep password logins after.
  1. silon42 · 1789749647 · focus · HN ↗
    Then passkeys are a guarantee of account loss, if there is no reasonable way of recovery.
    mrguyorama · 1789762687 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, that is what everyone keeps complaining about and the people who insist passkeys are the best continue to loudly and totally ignore.
    The repeated response to "I lost the passkey, what now?" is apathy. It is your fault, you should have done better, eat it loser.
    Because companies built passkeys for their own needs, not for users. In a managed device setting, there is a response: You go to IT and get provisioned new credentials. These companies don't care that you get fucked because they just don't care about your needs at all.
    mermerico · 1789880752 · focus · HN ↗
    Your passkeys should go in your password manager.
2. hannasanarion · 1789735700 · focus · HN ↗
  What benefit does that give you? Passkeys cannot be moved, by design. So for the website, recieving the same one means you're talking to the same device, always.
  The purpose of rotating passwords is to cycle out potentially compromised ones, due to phishing attacks, keyloggers, shoulder snoops, etc. But those cannot exist with a passkey.
  1. pirates · 1789737712 · focus · HN ↗
    Doesn’t this mean that a compromised device with passkeys on it is worse than a compromised password since the passkeys can’t be rotated? I feel like the answer is obvious so there must be another angle I’m missing
    hannasanarion · 1789743530 · focus · HN ↗
    What kind of compromise are we talking about? Was the device stolen? Then yeah, you need to rotate passkeys (and all your passwords, and remotely cancel all your live sessions, none of which is new).
    Was the device hacked from afar and the data read off of it? The passkey is probably fine. You can rotate it if you want to, it's not a bad idea, I probably would to be certain, but you're not pwnd even if a bad guy got a shell for a while, heck even if they got a root shell.
    I understood the question to be "should passkeys be rotated regularly" to which the answer is probably no because there's not really a compromise mechanism that that measure reliably defends against as far as I know.
    Rotation defends against secrets that leak through use and without your knowledge, like a password entered into a phishing page or snooped over your shoulder or cracked from a breached hash. Passkeys aren't vulnerable to those things because they never travel over a network, are never seen by the server, are never seen by their own users.
    You change the locks on your house when a key goes missing, or is known to be in the hands of somebody you don't want getting in, it's not something you do every three months just in case. Same with passkeys.
wg0 · 1789734711 · focus · HN ↗
They really are bad. Passkeys have turned out to be just another password that you cannot even memorize.
1. john_strinlai · 1789735433 · focus · HN ↗
  >just another password that you cannot even memorize
  there's some issues with passkeys, but not being able to memorize them is a feature
  1. blackdahlia313 · 1789735828 · focus · HN ↗
    And this is why people bash passkeys, but they hear a buzzword lol
  2. wg0 · 1789736792 · focus · HN ↗
    So where do I keep my pass keys is the problem. They are in my password manager just like another password. So what's the point of having them because effectively, the passwords in the password manager and the passkey in the password manager offer the same UX to me? Except that at least I can memorize a password by heart just in case.
    john_strinlai · 1789736908 · focus · HN ↗
    >They are in my password manager just like another password. So what's the point of having them because effectively, the passwords in the password manager and the passkey in the password manager offer the same UX to me?
    same ux, different security properties.
    xboxnolifes · 1789750900 · focus · HN ↗
    The password is the recovery flow. What do you propose instead that isnt just a variation of having a password and a passkey?
    john_strinlai · 1789753997 · focus · HN ↗
    a memorized password is not part of a well thought out recovery flow.
    double triple emphasis on "memorized"
    xboxnolifes · 1789766807 · focus · HN ↗
    Ok, I write my password down. Now what?
    john_strinlai · 1789768550 · focus · HN ↗
    the same advice as the last few decades:
    place it in a fireproof safe alongside your other important documents, like your passport and birth certificate.
    drdexebtjl · 1789738110 · focus · HN ↗
    That is the point. They stop you from memorizing it “just in case” and reusing it, and they force you to use a password manager.
    For the average user, which doesn’t use a password manager, this is great. It means they can’t get phished. And it’s also great for the average password manager user, who keeps dozens of insecure and reused passwords in their vault because they manually thought of a password when signing up instead of randomly generating one.
    If you’re already using a password manager and random passwords, the UX is designed to be the same. It’s just a way to get regular people to do this.
    Telaneo · 1789792561 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you’re already using a password manager and random passwords, the UX is designed to be the same.
    In that case, they've completely and utterly failed.
  3. account42 · 1789743184 · focus · HN ↗
    A corportation's feature is a user's bug.
    john_strinlai · 1789745107 · focus · HN ↗
    it's a feature that benefits users.
elteto · 1789734778 · focus · HN ↗
While the technology itself may be great (I don't really know since I don't use them) it has been co-opted by the tech conglomerates as another form of isolating and walling off users into their ecosystems.
And honestly, nowadays, if tech companies are pushing really hard for something then that is an immediate red flag for me and it bears more scrutiny. One of those "if you see them running that way you run the opposite way".
1. spider-mario · 1789734934 · focus · HN ↗
  It’s a bit ironic that Apple is the one that lets you export them.
  1. rcxdude · 1789735215 · focus · HN ↗
    They're also not supporting device attestation which would allow websites to insist on particular implementations of passkeys.
    dingaling · 1789740445 · focus · HN ↗
    That's more because attestation breaks their passkey cross-device sync process, rather than out of benevolence.
  2. 93po · 1789764618 · focus · HN ↗
    But only to other approved apps
    spider-mario · 1789800718 · focus · HN ↗
    Not as far as I’m aware? They of course require the target app to be compatible with the way they export them, but I don’t think they vet them manually. At the very least, on my phone, the apps it agrees to export to include Chrome and Bitwarden (the latter of which lets me export them further).
2. mschuster91 · 1789735345 · focus · HN ↗
  > And honestly, nowadays, if tech companies are pushing really hard for something then that is an immediate red flag for me and it bears more scrutiny.
  The reason is the ever increasing number of hijacks of social media presences and code hosting portals, with the latter being a serious financial threat. Done right, passkeys stay in the Secure Enclave, at least for anything Apple and most of the Android sphere. There is no reasonable way to obtain login credentials for accounts protected by passkeys without physical access to the user's device(s).
  1. iso1631 · 1789736307 · focus · HN ↗
    > There is no reasonable way to obtain login credentials for accounts protected by passkeys without physical access to the user's device(s).
    Click "I lost my device", enter contact, get a reset link via email/sms
    john_strinlai · 1789736807 · focus · HN ↗
    okay, so now you need access to their email or simjack their phone first.
    terminalbraid · 1789737249 · focus · HN ↗
    Email and SMS are not reasonable and both have an extraordinary number of flaws.
    jmbwell · 1789737938 · focus · HN ↗
    So use the recovery codes. Or scan the QR code and auth from another device
    I’d buy that there are too many different confusing ways to recover from this situation, but not that it’s impossible
    Barbing · 1789741344 · focus · HN ↗
    >use the recovery codes.
    Fun fact: Google can decide to reject these. Lose access to the original device, try to rely on recovery codes to login with known current password on family member’s device… nope!
    hobo123 · 1789797036 · focus · HN ↗
    Wait, so I set up 2FA, printed the codes, but now if I ever lose my phone or it's stolen I'm screwed?
    Barbing · 1789833283 · focus · HN ↗
    I guarantee you this is within the realm of possibility based on one single experience.
    When you upgrade your phone perhaps keep your old one in a safe and charge it and login to Gmail monthly or something?
    I’m also quite certain the codes could work instantly with no trouble in some circumstances. Now know it’s risky though. And I’m sure it’s a security measure based on real, deeply painful and costly instances of unauthorized access. Just don’t know what we’re exactly supposed to do…
    terminalbraid · 1789841316 · focus · HN ↗
    Google gives you no guarantee of service for your account. They could arbitrarily decide to lock you out for any reason and you have literally no recourse.
    iso1631 · 1789740057 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, yet in the real world those are the acceptable means if you want your customer to continue to pay you when they've lost their phone.
    gong_hits · 1789751761 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  2. zamadatix · 1789737219 · focus · HN ↗
    The doubt is more "how will tech companies use passkeys as an excuse to do something stupid" than "passkeys themselves must have inherent problems because tech companies are pushing them".
    Passkeys could be the savior of all security problems worldwide from a capability point of view and tech companies would still ruin it by trying to force ways it pushes you into their ecosystem instead of just being whats both secure and convenient.
    As an example, I have 3 different passkey _APPS_ on my phone and cannot go down to one because of various reasons with each (e.g. MS authenticator forced for work).
3. reddalo · 1789736878 · focus · HN ↗
  Exactly. That's why I'll never use passkeys: they're just another way to force us into a commercial walled garden.
  Passwords with 2FA are simply better and more freedom friendly.
  1. apexalpha · 1789740307 · focus · HN ↗
    I just bought a passkey... It's a USB device, completely separate from any big conglomerates.
    reddalo · 1789744788 · focus · HN ↗
    But then you need to phisically carry it along with you everywhere you go, if you want to log into a service :/
    SoftTalker · 1789746441 · focus · HN ↗
    And hope you don't lose it, or leave it in a pocket when you do the laundry, or plug it into a faulty USB port that zaps it, etc.
    vel0city · 1789747109 · focus · HN ↗
    My yubikeys have survived dips in the ocean, spilled beers, run over by cars, dropped in pans of used motor oil, and multiple trips through the washer and dryer. They're still fine even after a decade.
    hnfong · 1789749054 · focus · HN ↗
    Nothing survives the xkcd 538 wrench attack.
    apexalpha · 1789747723 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, it’s like a key. :)
    Though realistically I use a passkey for services I care about and a password manager for the rest.
    eikenberry · 1789749202 · focus · HN ↗
    Keys can be copied very easily. It’s one of their primary features. Can you easily copy your USB key?
    jazzyjackson · 1789749877 · focus · HN ↗
    Yubikeys are Secure Enclaves designed to not be copyable
    eikenberry · 1789766960 · focus · HN ↗
    Right. That's the flaw I was pointing out.
    krupan · 1789752977 · focus · HN ↗
    Physical keys can easily be copied, and physical locks can easily be picked. That might be fine for your house or storage unit, but for your bank account or your car (newer cars no longer have simple physical keys/locks), we've moved beyond that tech.
    mrguyorama · 1789757224 · focus · HN ↗
    That any and all physical security measures can be defeated is a feature, not a bug. Almost no human beings actually need that level of security, and the tradeoffs are absolutely not worth it for those of us without Mossad as a threat.
    How often do people lock themselves out of their own house? Don't you know anyone with ADHD? Imagine any time that happens it is mathematically verifiably permanent as a fact of reality itself. It doesn't matter that the state still views you as the legal owner, you are never allowed in ever again.
    krupan · 1789758219 · focus · HN ↗
    No web service is like that. They all offer recovery options. We aren't talking about Bitcoin here.
    EvanAnderson · 1789760268 · focus · HN ↗
    The trend of companies becoming easier to contact is well-documented.
    Telaneo · 1789790539 · focus · HN ↗
    Tell that to the people who have lost access to their Google account.
    krupan · 1789917517 · focus · HN ↗
    Now we aren't talking about a security problem, we're talking about who really owns what. Google can lock you out of your account no matter what kind of authentication they use for that account
    Telaneo · 1789921403 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a lot easier to be locked out with a passkey than without one.
    krupan · 1789926211 · focus · HN ↗
    No it's not. Google flips a bit in their database and no matter what kind of authentication you set up with them, you get denied
    Telaneo · 1789951491 · focus · HN ↗
    This does not reflect my own lived experience.
    krupan · 1790003831 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. If Google decides they don't want you to log in anymore, you can't log in anymore. It doesn't matter if you try to log in with a passkey, a password, your fingerprint, or sending a secret code in with carrier pidgeon. This has nothing to do with passkeys vs passwords vs anything else.
    If Google does want you to be able to log in then they will work with you to make that happen, whether you forgot your password, lost your passkey, or your carrier pidgeon died.
    Passkeys are not special in this regard at all. What does make them special is that nobody can use a phishing attack to steal your passkey and log in to your account. Nobody can guess your passkey and log into your account. Nobody can intercept your passkey in flight and log in as you. That's the important distinction.
    apexalpha · 1789806022 · focus · HN ↗
    You can 'copy' it by registering a new one to the service.
    finaard · 1789748750 · focus · HN ↗
    That's not the problem for me - I carry a bunch of tokens with me anyway (all my banking stuff is on hardware tokens, for example). My problem is more: My browsers run in containers or VMs, intentionally without hardware access. Getting passkeys to work there would be quite a bit of effort.
  2. jwcrux · 1789748299 · focus · HN ↗
    How do you see passkeys as a walled garden but not 2FA? You presumably store your 2FA seed in a password manager.
    dsl · 1789750745 · focus · HN ↗
    I can write my own authenticator implementation in a few hours by hand, maybe 5 minutes vibe coded. <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6238/" rel="nofollow">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6238/
    Even if you throw your phone into a volcano and buy a new one, you can still receive SMS verification.
    qlte · 1789797305 · focus · HN ↗
    KeePassXC supports passkeys
    Groxx · 1789754267 · focus · HN ↗
    Passwords can move between walled gardens generally very easily (export) or manually in all cases (enter by hand).
    Passkeys only very recently got relatively broad support for migrating data (after years of promise and no support at all), and they report (optionally with hardware attestation) what password manager you're using so sites can force specific ones.
  3. Shank · 1789756712 · focus · HN ↗
    I store my passkeys in KeePassXC and I have absolutely no feeling of being walled into any garden, personally.
    EvanAnderson · 1789760185 · focus · HN ↗
    Wait until websites start demanding device-bound/attested passkeys. Big tech just needs to get enough adoption to make this change.
    nbobko · 1789771171 · focus · HN ↗
    As much as I hate to admit it (because I love passkeys UX), but I do think that device-bound/attested passkeys are going to happen in the future :(
    Shank · 1789802452 · focus · HN ↗
    Nobody is going to do this because Apple’s devices don’t support this for the Passwords app out of the box
    tonoto · 1789766346 · focus · HN ↗
    but what do passkeys offer in terms of security, when stored in password managers, compared to having a (password manager) generated password and a totp?
    I believe that by allowing password managers to store passkeys, the whole purpose of "device based security" got lost..
    flumpcakes · 1789767941 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes. I use hardware based passkeys and absolutely love them. I think it was a giant mistake having them 'software' based. It some ways it kind of defeats the entire purpose...
    qlte · 1789797163 · focus · HN ↗
    They are 100% immune to credentials phishing. You literally cannot authenticate to an impersonator site based on cryptographic guarantees.
    And yes, I know the happy path of password managers uses host-based autofill which does add some friction to phishing attempts, but given the prevalence of unexpected but legitimate urls with weird alternate subdomains/SSO/redirects in modern login flows, you have to manually autofill/add an exception often enough that it's possible to let your guard down once at the wrong time.
4. alibrarydweller · 1789746283 · focus · HN ↗
  I did a deep dive on this since progressively more places are taking a hard line about Passkeys.
  The most flexible, independence preserving thing to do is to use a third party password manager like Bitwarden, and make that the default passkey flow for your devices. If desired, you can self-host something like Vaultwarden so that you can both keep the keys independent of third parties and walled gardens and also propagate them to other client devices.
  To be clear I'd much rather not have learned / implemented any of this, and I don't use passkeys unless forced, but this seems like a valid coping strategy.
blfr · 1789734885 · focus · HN ↗
Yes, thank you. Maybe I am getting old but password+yubikey/webauthn was really top UX.
1. mschuster91 · 1789735511 · focus · HN ↗
  > Maybe I am getting old but password+yubikey/webauthn was really top UX.
  It most definitely isn't. Any 2nd factor that is not the device I am currently using (either a yubikey or my phone) has a non-zero chance of not being near me when I need it, leading to the constant question of "where the fuck did I put that darn thing", only to find out that the cat has decided to believe the yubikey like it's a mouse and tried to devour it, the phone's battery went dead...
2. xxs · 1789738101 · focus · HN ↗
  What prevents passkey being used alongside password?
  1. blfr · 1789738984 · focus · HN ↗
    Email 2fa otoh is the worst UX I have experienced. I curse every time Claude sends me a magic link. Absolutely hate them.
    esafak · 1789739466 · focus · HN ↗
    You don't like not having to worry that they don't store your creds so they can't lose it?
    blfr · 1789740281 · focus · HN ↗
    The creds they store hold no value. These creds only give access to their system anyway. They store the email address either way so the situation is no better but less convenient.
    esafak · 1789749021 · focus · HN ↗
    They hold no value precisely because they don't store them and send you a magic link! If they stored a recycled password or its hash, then it would be valuable.
    blfr · 1789751142 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes but I use separate passwords and webauthn is per domain as well.
    xxs · 1789989406 · focus · HN ↗
    Not sure this is what I meant. Password is still stored, along will all the keypass stuff. If you have the option to login with the keypass... or the password - possibly sending you a link (or code) to the email.
xyzzy_plugh · 1789735025 · focus · HN ↗
Do passkeys improve security posture for the average person, reducing the likelihood of them losing their accounts to fraudulent actors? Absolutely.
But they also introduce single points of failure, as the article points out. I can't even remember how many times I've had to help a family member recover their account or get confused when they can't sign in on a new device. It's incredibly frustrating that this flow is promoted as the default for so many services.
1password is the best solution I've found for the average person. It's not perfect (it's definitely more complex than writing down your passwords on a piece of paper or using the same password everywhere) but it's much easier than juggling yubikeys. I know so many non-technical staff members who prefer the OS or browser keys even if it means another account recovery is lurking around the corner.
vanschelven · 1789735045 · focus · HN ↗
Passkeys remind me of ipv6 in that they are a "solution" coming from the supply-side, without (apparently) having done any research in what motivates actual users (and what would motivate them to switch).
<<ducks>>
1. coldpie · 1789738449 · focus · HN ↗
  They make sense as a technology for businesses & their users. In that scenario, the owner of the account is not the user, but the business. It makes sense for the business to be able to place strong restrictions on how & where the user may log in, it fixes a lot of real problems businesses may have thanks to sloppy user behavior, and the business is also motivated to provide a way to fix broken logins. It's a good solution for that scenario.
  But for regular end users where services are primarily motivated to take money from those users and lock them into their ecosystems, they are a usability disaster and yet another exploitation vector.
  It's one solution for two very different usecases, and it just does not work. There is an approach that could work for end users who own their own accounts, but they need to go back to the drawing board and rewrite the protocol with the assumption that the keystore is hostile to the user's interests. That means strong guarantees on key portability so users can migrate away from hostile keystores, and absolutely no ability for services to restrict the user's choice in passkey provider software.
  1. Telaneo · 1789751200 · focus · HN ↗
    > and the business is also motivated to provide a way to fix broken logins. It's a good solution for that scenario.
    This is a big part of it. An employee at a business will be able to talk to someone in person and say 'I can't login. Can you reset my password?' or whatever equivalent, and be made whole. Even if the business is is made up of 10000 people and the identity of the employee is for some reason in question, the situation can still be resolved with a passport or a driver's licence.
    Google is never going to make you whole again if you're locked out of your account, unless you're a celebrity and make a stink. There is no help desk where you can prove who you are (and even if you could, would you want to? That's a whole second domain of problems that I'm not sure will ever be solved completely).
2. frantathefranta · 1789740082 · focus · HN ↗
  I think passkeys were made to work in mind with complete idiots (here's a pop-up, tap it, now you have access to website without password, don't think about where it was saved or that it exists at all). I can understand parts of IPv6 like Router Advertisement being like that but there is so much customizability for the user that I can't really see them being similar that way.
  1. cpburns2009 · 1789743519 · focus · HN ↗
    Except they never considered that "complete idiots" could lose access to their phone's passkeys.
    mahboi · 1789759896 · focus · HN ↗
    They did, that's why they sync
    cpburns2009 · 1789766852 · focus · HN ↗
    Right... just let me pull out my non-existent spare phone when mine breaks or gets lost.
    mahboi · 1789767593 · focus · HN ↗
    It'll work if you have a laptop on the same account, iCloud or 1password or whatever else. If you only had a phone, you set the account up again on your new phone.
    timbit42 · 1789932062 · focus · HN ↗
    How does a person sync their passkeys between devices?
    mahboi · 1790010254 · focus · HN ↗
    iCloud, Chrome, 1password, etc
  2. mahboi · 1789759986 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep, even more than that, ipv4 NAT is the most idiot-proof thing. IPv6 replaced that with a firewall that may or may not be default-deny. Most people don't even want that possibility.
3. mahboi · 1789756274 · focus · HN ↗
  Nah, TOTP was like ipv6. Particularly for the first ~8 years when everyone used Google Authenticator for it and that app would find every possible way to make you lose your keys. Most sites including banks never got on board with TOTP.
  Passkeys have their UI issues, but they're getting slowly solved, and we finally have a serious contender to SMS auth.
  1. henri_ilands · 1789915902 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  2. henri_ilands · 1789915976 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
kardianos · 1789735064 · focus · HN ↗
I agree with all the points this articulates. I understand why for many users they are great. But I would prefer better acceptance and continuance of the simpler, unfishable, u2f simple hardware keys.
micromacrofoot · 1789735067 · focus · HN ↗
The experience is also junk if you're using a password manager, I have passkeys that I'm not sure if I saved to the OS manager or my password manager... mostly my fault but I enter passwords so many times a day it can be hard to stay on top of which UI I'm clicking yes in to store them.
Password managers are great IMO, I can use some absurdly long password, backup is reliable, I can use them across devices. For extra secure stuff 2FA works the same, I've got an app with codes I can easily back up and use from multiple devices.
Passkeys tend to obscure everything and take away a lot of control.
BoppreH · 1789735124 · focus · HN ↗
Completely agree. I think the root of many of its issues is the inability to add a key that you don't currently hold. This prevents me from storing a backup key in a safe, for example.
I proposed an alternative scheme many years ago: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343318317_Privacy-aware_web_authentication_protocol_with_recovery_and_revocation" rel="nofollow">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343318317_Privacy-a... . By allowing "offline" keys you can also treat them as higher priority, and use them to revoke any lesser keys from attackers if your account is compromised.
It would also be nicer to get rid of usernames, but that's a fight against the data-gathering powers that we're unlikely to win.
Liftyee · 1789735138 · focus · HN ↗
YES. This exactly. I work across multiple devices, some of which are nonstandard/uncommon (Linux, Xiaomi China ROM, ...) and I've NEVER had passkeys work properly - yet everything constantly prompts me to add one. Even if they did work, I'd have to carry around hardware keys or register each computer separately. And the lack of backups if a device is lost/broken is definitely a larger concern for me than being phished of my TOTP keys.
1. girvo · 1789735437 · focus · HN ↗
  My wife clicked through a Google dialog and suddenly was using a passkey. It absolutely happens, though IMO more to the non technical users. I know what those login dialogs and pop ups mean, and decline them.
  (At least til I get around to setting up my new usb c yubikeys!)
  1. ryandrake · 1789750173 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm convinced that most Passkey adoption is accidental.
    deaux · 1789757056 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm convinced it's over 80%.
2. utopiah · 1789739221 · focus · HN ↗
  > lack of backups if a device is lost/broken
  Same as traditional physical keys, you don't have a single key, you have multiple ones precisely so that if you lose/break one, you are not stuck and can go to the local locksmith and get another one in minutes.
  In fact it's even nicer since you can just re-use the backup key with no security loss by revoking the other one, and buying another key.
  1. account42 · 1789742932 · focus · HN ↗
    For physical keys I don't need to ask permission to be able to make a second or third copy.
    utopiah · 1789743023 · focus · HN ↗
    You don't need to ask permission to buy another key or register it to your self-hosted service.
    In fact if you have the technical skills to make your own physical key and respect standards, e.g U2F, you don't even need to buy one.
  2. cpburns2009 · 1789744332 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not like physical keys at all. You can get copies made of those. Passkeys deliberately are not copyable.
    utopiah · 1789912204 · focus · HN ↗
    You don't copy the keys themselves, instead you make multiple relationships with different keys. You can get as many or as little keys as you want. The point is the keys themselves are not important.
    cpburns2009 · 1790085744 · focus · HN ↗
    The keys are vital, and if you lose them you're SoL. A major hurtle is that you cannot create multiple relationships with different keys. Each key can only be used once.
  3. cesarb · 1789745228 · focus · HN ↗
    > Same as traditional physical keys, you don't have a single key, you have multiple ones [...]
    I have multiple identical ones.
    > [...] and can go to the local locksmith and get another one in minutes.
    Can I go to the digital equivalent of a locksmith (like a backup software) and duplicate my passkey? Can I do that with only my passkey in hand (without having to do anything to the corresponding lock, or having to contact its issuer), like I recently did with a physical key?
    saltcured · 1789750632 · focus · HN ↗
    Heh, in the security world, this shows how your traditional metal key is "something you know" (like a password) because it can be copied and many people can know it at once!
    So if we are enforcing MFA requirements and allow this kind of clonable key, then we should really require some other factor that is not clonable.
    That's the core silliness of this whole passkey mess, IMHO. So many turns of rhetoric and weird compromises, we have cargo cult security and no real understanding of what security level is in place.
    Instead of the best of worlds, we can accidentally have the worst of worlds without realizing until it is too late and we're painted into one of those ugly corners.
    cesarb · 1789760012 · focus · HN ↗
    > Heh, in the security world, this shows how your traditional metal key is "something you know" (like a password) because it can be copied and many people can know it at once!
    If you have a photo of a traditional metal key, you can duplicate it. AFAIK, there's also a numeric representation of the height of each position on the key; if you know that number, you can duplicate the key. A traditional metal key is more like a password than most people think.
3. qlte · 1789797833 · focus · HN ↗
  > lack of backups if a device is lost/broken
  That's not accurate. Bitwarden syncs passkeys across all my devices including both mobile/desktop (iOS/Android/MacOS/Windows/Fedora) using Chrome/Edge/Safari (I haven't tried Firefox).
  KeepassXC is an open source alternative for cross-device synced passkeys. Marginally less secure than device bound passkeys but it's seamless and I save so much time being able to login with one-click instead of wasting it on arbitrary "let's make sure you're you" MFA nonsense.
etatester · 1789735170 · focus · HN ↗
As someone who uses a single password manager on my computer and phone, I don't see the problem with passkeys. I use Safari on both and I never even had to "set up" anything.
I can see why they would be problematic for people who otherwise live life with a single love2025 password though.
1. kejdkwjdjwj · 1789736665 · focus · HN ↗
  Yep, this is typical HN (aka that vocal minority that likes to stroke their own egos pretending to be greybeards or something): complain about how something works ignoring all the ways it is used and implemented correctly and make a blog post about it talking about some nonsense to pretend they know a lot about the thing they are complaining.
  Passkeys are great. The Apple passkey experience is seamless. They just work. Anything else is poppycock of the highest order.
2. flerchin · 1789737900 · focus · HN ↗
  Imagine you lose your computer and phone. How do you recover your digital accounts? This happens every day to someone. The most common scenario being a house fire or robbery.
  1. karlshea · 1789739289 · focus · HN ↗
    The same way you recover your account when you lose a password.
    marcosdumay · 1789746947 · focus · HN ↗
    What benefit does your 128-bits authentication schema gain when anybody can just clone a phone number?
    Or do you demand that the user has an email with that 128-bits authn too, with a key on the same phone that was lost?
    flerchin · 1789748570 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't get it. I recover an account at ticketmaster by receiving an email. I recover an account at google by???
    karlshea · 1789780095 · focus · HN ↗
    Receiving an email at your backup email address? Getting a text message? It’s whatever you have decided to set up in your account, the same as with a password.
    flerchin · 1789852081 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the point with a passkey is that those very loose backup methods are required, since just knowing the password is not a thing. Everyone gets a new phone and is at risk of the previous one being unavailable. So passkeys mean that there's no way to deal with that reality, and also be truly secure.
    karlshea · 1789882180 · focus · HN ↗
    Or use a password manager that syncs to the cloud and log in with the same passkey using another device? I just got a new iPhone and logged into a bunch of things on-device using synced passkeys. It worked just fine.
    Every conversation about this seems to involve someone asserting that improving upon passwords in any way at all is unacceptable unless the solution is perfect in every possible way, with the goalposts constantly moving.
  2. etatester · 1789746420 · focus · HN ↗
    If only smart people didn't already have a solution to this <a href="https://support.apple.com/en-us/102641" rel="nofollow">https://support.apple.com/en-us/102641
dxjxjdjsssb · 1789735191 · focus · HN ↗
Dev: Adds a passkey button to the login page. Groknards: "Oh My God Stop Forcing This On Me!"
I can't think of a single time I've had a passkey forced on me, but that nonsense sits at the core of every passkey related post.
1. rcxdude · 1789735317 · focus · HN ↗
  I've seen it. Websites are pretty inconsistent about the flow but I've had a few just try to install a passkey when I log in. You can, if you're paying attention, avoid it actually happening, but the average user isn't going to notice until they suddenly can't log in because they're on a different device.
2. paulryanrogers · 1789735443 · focus · HN ↗
  You must not use Outlook
3. geerlingguy · 1789735512 · focus · HN ↗
  Every time I login to certain sites (like my health insurance, for one) I get a passkey prompt (system dialog) with no way to keyboard-dismiss, so I'm forced to move my hand over to the mouse and figure out which of three poorly-named buttons to press to get on with the login and ignore the passkey.
  It's a minor inconvenience, but happens so regularly I hate it. It also stops the login flow until I dismiss the prompt, which is also annoying as I could've already gotten to the page I wanted to get to in the time it took to dismiss the dialog.
4. dbalatero · 1789736648 · focus · HN ↗
  I feel like dozens of sites constantly nag me about this. The best ones at least save a cookie to note I'm not interested, such as GitHub.
hahn-kev · 1789735451 · focus · HN ↗
I like using passkeys in bitwarden from Firefox, I just wish it didn't popup a dialog that's usually behind the browser.
drtz · 1789735547 · focus · HN ↗
Passkeys do marginally improve security against MITM and phishing attacks, but they are primarily for protecting the lowest common denominator from themselves: people who re-use passwords and/or don't use a password manager.
If you use multiple devices throughout the day, registering passkeys in all of these systems becomes a big headache with O(m*n) complexity, so putting the passkeys in a password manager is the only realistic solution. But this still breaks the login flow for a very common use case: how do I log in on a device that I don't own? With a password in a password manager I at least have the option of manually typing the password.
The biggest problem, though, is how users are pushed into it without any warning or knowledge of what they're signing up for. I've accidentally set up passkeys just by clicking an okay button a few times in the past and had to go back and figure out how to undo it after being blocked from login on another computer (which computer was I on again?).
1. mystifyingpoi · 1789735953 · focus · HN ↗
  > how do I log in on a device that I don't own?
  Sad reality is that such usecase is less and less common, thus, no one cares about it. I think majority of my friends would not be able to access their email, or facebook or alike, if they were forced to use my computer in emergency.
  1. Latty · 1789737332 · focus · HN ↗
    Which is a trade-off that makes sense for a lot of people. If you have multiple devices, many of which are portable and one you have on you all the time, the need for that is just way lower, so being more secure against commonplace automated widespread attacks is worth it to them.
    iamnothere · 1789743156 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    pixl97 · 1789748592 · focus · HN ↗
    Heh, this situation totally reminds me of politics.
    Person 1: "People that end up in this situation that can easily happen should be punished to the full extent of the law with no mercy!"
    [Exact situation happens to Person 1]
    Person 1: "This is the greatest injustice, do people have no empathy? I could not have avoided this situation!"
    fredm7 · 1789912909 · focus · HN ↗
    That sounds deeper than politics… More like human nature.
  2. cj · 1789737789 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't there a workflow where you scan a QR code to confirm the pass key on your phone?
    I've definitely done this, but not sure if the workflow was at the OS or browser level.
    I'm honestly confused by all the negativity in the comments. Passkeys are great for convenience. Just leave your password login enabled as a backup. That defeats any security benefit, but oh well.
    dgunay · 1789741773 · focus · HN ↗
    There is. Doesn't work on every browser but it's really nice and I use it routinely.
    kps · 1789741945 · focus · HN ↗
    > Isn't there a workflow where you scan a QR code to confirm the pass key on your phone?
    For people in this position, if they had their phone, they probably wouldn't be logging in on a computer anyway.
    limagnolia · 1789743958 · focus · HN ↗
    There are a lot of reasons why I might want to login on a computer I don't own to do something, rather than to use my phone. Having a keyboard is a major usability benefit for many types of work. Larger screen, printer. Software that is on the machine that can't run on my phone.
    kps · 1789744441 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree with you; those are all reasons I only use my phone for on-the-go messaging or navigation. I'm against the idea that you should have to have a secure (against the owner) connected phone on your person at all times in order to sign in to a web service.
    vel0city · 1789746929 · focus · HN ↗
    You don't have to with passkeys. I use passkeys every day, they rarely involve using my phone.
    xboxnolifes · 1789744496 · focus · HN ↗
    Thats still irrelevant to the example being discussed.
    conradludgate · 1789745494 · focus · HN ↗
    This is what I use to log into our remote desktop software at work. The passkey is on my phone and I scan a QR code presented by the remote desktop software (in this case it's the Windows App on my macbook and Microsoft Authenticator on my android).
  3. alienbaby · 1789743246 · focus · HN ↗
    Rubbish. Such use cases are extremely common anywhere it can't be expected everyone has access to their own device.
  4. megous · 1789744009 · focus · HN ↗
    That's actually a good use case for HW keys. Since untrusted computers are much more likely to have keyloggers/malware, etc. So you don't need to reset password and invalidate all sessions after each such login on an untrusted computer.
  5. epihelix · 1789744041 · focus · HN ↗
    And that sounds fine, until you're traveling and your devices get stolen or lost. How, exactly, are you going to get into your email then, once passkeys become the only means of login? Because that moment is when you really do need to access your email, stat.
    jayknight · 1789747819 · focus · HN ↗
    What services implement it like this? Don't services usually implement passkeys as a more secure alternative to a password, but password login is still available?
    Some sites allow passkeys as an option for MFA, so that could be an issue if the passkey is your only MFA option and MFA is required. But I imagine email would pretty much always be a fallback.
    basch · 1789751821 · focus · HN ↗
    When was the last time you tried to log into something like Google, Apple, Microsoft etc without your phone nearby, on a fresh computer?
    mrweasel · 1789752555 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    mahboi · 1789755913 · focus · HN ↗
    Nothing but a memorized password works in this scenario, right?
    MrMetlHed · 1789757269 · focus · HN ↗
    And not even that, now that I think about it. I have my very long Bitwarden password memorized but if my devices are all stolen I won't be able to get passed the 2-factor, so I'd still be screwed.
  6. makeitdouble · 1789744679 · focus · HN ↗
    A variant of that is alternative accounts that properly live on a different device/context.
    For instance YouTubers usually have a different account for their channel than the one they use privately, and don't want their channel account logged in everywhere.
    That means having to log in as a guest when push comes to shove. And similar setups are common for most self-employed keeping a "work" account IMHO.
  7. heavensteeth · 1789744985 · focus · HN ↗
    You wouldn't be able to if you use a traditional password manager, either. At best you'd have to share your entire password database.
2. Latty · 1789737190 · focus · HN ↗
  The offer a strong protection against phishing attacks that would still get plenty of password manager users: fake websites. A passkey is strongly linked to a domain, so a fake site can't get that credential.
  Some password managers will only fill if a domain matches, but IRL the response I've seen from most users when it doesn't match is to assume the integration broke and manually copy/paste it in. I've also seen lots of them do stuff like happily autofill on any prefix of the domain, so your credential for `something.example.com` will autofill into `fake-something.example.com`.
  1. flerchin · 1789737476 · focus · HN ↗
    How did fake-something get injected as a subdomain?
    Asmod4n · 1789737740 · focus · HN ↗
    Loads of hosting sites do this, username.domain.tld is the most common one.
    somehnguy · 1789739129 · focus · HN ↗
    I guess it's a good thing my bank doesn't have a free web hosting service
  2. lapcat · 1789737629 · focus · HN ↗
    > Some password managers will only fill if a domain matches, but IRL the response I've seen from most users when it doesn't match is to assume the integration broke and manually copy/paste it in. I've also seen lots of them do stuff like happily autofill on any prefix of the domain, so your credential for `something.example.com` will autofill into `fake-something.example.com`.
    Why would you trust the very same password managers that don't handle passwords properly to handle passkeys properly?
    6P58r3MXJSLi · 1789738036 · focus · HN ↗
    > Why would you trust the very same password managers that don't handle passwords properly to handle passkeys properly?
    Gell-Mann amnesia effect
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#%22Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect%22" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#%22Gell-Mann_...
    Latty · 1789738135 · focus · HN ↗
    You don't. The browser handles the passkey matching to the domain which is obviously a better place to do it. There could obviously still be bugs as with all things, but it's much more intentionally integrated into the flow which makes it much harder to bypass.
    lapcat · 1789738721 · focus · HN ↗
    > The browser handles the passkey matching to the domain which is obviously a better place to do it.
    I'm not sure why you're making a distinction. In many cases the browser is the password manager.
    Latty · 1789739033 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, I haven't seen that particular flaw in baked-into-the-browser ones (probably because they already having secure domain matching code ready to use), but the distinction is that doing the domain check is a part of the spec and standard, so e.g: sites aren't going to break it by changing the log-in subdomain routinely, as has been common historically.
    Password managers have had to be permissive enough to work with most websites, and there is no standard for it. There have been sites that blocked the autofilling of passwords and so on as well.
    My point wasn't this one particular flaw in some password managers is the reason to use passkeys (the copy/paste point is the much bigger issue anyway), just that it's an example of how relatively brittle the password manager process is. Having it a core part of the spec gives stronger guarantees.
    cruffle_duffle · 1789742356 · focus · HN ↗
    “There have been sites that blocked the autofilling of passwords and so on as well.”
    Sites that do this irritate me so much. Ones that try to block pasting and stuff… like somebody intentionally baked that into the site. Who? And what was their rationale? Are they really so arrogant to think people are going to carefully type in some elaborate password not once but twice?
    That and blocking paste in fields like bank account numbers and stuff.
    Surely somebody here has been asked to implement these mis-features. Please explain what went through the heads of the people responsible for it?
    pnw · 1789747591 · focus · HN ↗
    Blocking bank account numbers from being pasted is considered an error prevention measure. By forcing people to enter it manually at least once, you stop them from blindly pasting the wrong number twice.
    There's no real regulation requiring blocking paste but it has become an annoying informal standard of sorts.
    kyleee · 1789777287 · focus · HN ↗
    Thankfully brave’s right click menu has a force paste that works quite well
    cruffle_duffle · 1789861615 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure but who is reading account numbers off checks? They are copy and pasting from their bank app.
    jkubicek · 1789738161 · focus · HN ↗
    The users are the ones manually copy/pasting the password. There's no way the password manager could prevent this short of disallowing copying/viewing passwords.
    conradludgate · 1789745258 · focus · HN ↗
    The password integration breaks because it's trying to detect password fields rather and failing because of weird HTML/JS code.
    The passkey integration goes the other way, which is much more reliable.
  3. embedding-shape · 1789738023 · focus · HN ↗
    > but IRL the response I've seen from most users when it doesn't match is to assume the integration broke and manually copy/paste it in.
    I've seen people do this AFK as well, and I'm always helpfully suggesting them the correct way of solving this: verifying the URL again, and if correct, add it to the password manager so it remembers in the future, and never copy-paste passwords on the web. Basically 50/50 if they take the advice or come back after a week asking if it's safe to copy-paste the password into the website, and I try to inform again.
    Shockingly, I saw one developer peer copy-pasting a password into a website, but I guess for these people there is no hope.
    Latty · 1789738501 · focus · HN ↗
    It should be a big red flag for sure, but the reality is most users aren't going to understand that. They got told to use a password manager by someone or find it convenient, but they don't understand the security flow enough to catch that it's a potential attack, or how to resolve it safely.
    Historically I've seen lots of sites do a subdomain shuffle for login pages every now and then which routinely breaks domain matching, introducing false positives that users have to deal with, making them numb to the threat too. Passkeys baking in the domain check with no workaround means that sites can't do that, which is a benefit.
    NoMoreNicksLeft · 1789755439 · focus · HN ↗
    My password manager's browser integration breaks on every update of Firefox, which seems like it is a weekly affair. I got rid of the extension, and copy/paste everything.
    Password managers were never meant to solve the problem of phishing, and aren't really capable of that. They solved the problem of password reuse. They do that just fine.
    Telaneo · 1789749822 · focus · HN ↗
    There are too many websites where this is broken for me (even with Firefox's built-in password fill) to go as far as to never copy-paste passwords. If web devs actually implemented it consistently, I might be that draconian about it, but asking them to do that when we already have the '200 MB of JS is needed to view this page' problem, I have my doubts we're going to see this problem going away any time soon.
    raron · 1789813729 · focus · HN ↗
    Probably the whole authentication thing shouldn't be implemented by the website at all. There should be some standardized way to ask for authentication that's implemented by the browser or the operating system.
    mos_basik · 1789751147 · focus · HN ↗
    Your last sentence got me good, as I'm a developer who copy-pastes passwords into websites (from a 12? year old KeePass database, for whatever that's worth).
    I've tried using the Firefox integration in the past - more than once - and I don't know... it had so many warts that I got fed up with it and turned it off. And now I have 1Password (from work) also doing its best to feed me credentials all the time. So trying the KeePass integration again is going to have them both drawing suggestion dropdowns all the time..
    But ok, I'll give it another honest shot. Because of your comment.
  4. ealready_value · 1789738202 · focus · HN ↗
    "Oh, usually my bank just logs me in, that's strange. Let me just go grab my username and password and type it into this site that looks like my bank."
    Same thing is going to happen with passkeys for non-technical users for exactly the same reason you stated. People will think the integration is busted and manually copy/paste the non-passkey credentials in. In that way, I would argue that passkey is not stronger protection against phishing attacks unless its the only way to login. It is, at best, a convenience for users.
    Latty · 1789738792 · focus · HN ↗
    If the user just has a username/password fallback and that's it, then yes, but the aim of passkeys is that won't be the norm, rather users will only have passkeys and the fallback would be to, e.g: magic link email log in where the phishing attack is still broken. I've seen some sites explicitly disallow plain username/password login after you enable passkeys for this reason (you can still put them in, but then it just does a magic link flow afterwards as a second factor).
    pamcake · 1789739211 · focus · HN ↗
    The pitch is that passwords will supposedly be phased out entirely as an option.
    rcxdude · 1789741195 · focus · HN ↗
    Which is a laudible goal, but something that makes "oh just fall back to the standard insecure recovery process" not a very good response to the concerns about users being able to actually hold on to their passkeys easily and reliably.
    cpburns2009 · 1789743372 · focus · HN ↗
    I've been told by multiple people that the recovery method of passkeys is to enter your username/password. If passwords are eliminated, your final recourse is fucked.
    Latty · 1789846674 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
3. judge2020 · 1789737919 · focus · HN ↗
  > how do I log in on a device that I don't own?
  This is solved by passkey-implementing software and devices (with Bluetooth) allowing you to log in with a QR code (Webauthn via CTAP hybrid transport). iOS and Android support this, and it’s generally not a locked-down thing if other devices wanted to do it too.
  The only use case left is in “how do I login if all my devices are stolen/fall into a body of water” in which there really isn’t an answer beyond “get (a|your) device back, sign back into your password manager, use that to get back into critical accounts”.
  1. 201984 · 1789738156 · focus · HN ↗
    What if the computer you want to log in on doesn't have Bluetooth? Probably most public computers (like ones in libraries) don't have it.
    limagnolia · 1789738450 · focus · HN ↗
    The website should display a qr code you can scan with your phone that allows you to then login, unfortunately a lot of sites don't implement this, and some don't implement backup codes. This isn't the fault of passkeys per se, but of poor implementations.
    201984 · 1789738633 · focus · HN ↗
    How does scanning the barcode with your phone log you into the computer? Does your phone need network access for that?
    Yokolos · 1789738928 · focus · HN ↗
    Steam does this. If I want to login, it shows a barcode I can scan with the app and it logs me in without needing to enter my login information. Phone needs internet access, doesn't need to be on the same network as the device I'm logging in on.
    roryirvine · 1789739002 · focus · HN ↗
    If you're not happy connecting your phone to the network, then how likely is it that you would you be willing to enter your login details on a machine you don't control?
    stonogo · 1789739890 · focus · HN ↗
    Poor people exist.
    roryirvine · 1789740507 · focus · HN ↗
    The poorest country I'm familiar with is Zambia, where about 90% of the population have a mobile subscription.
    The number of people sharing GP's concerns for reasons of poverty rather than because of their personal security posture will be vanishingly small.
    arcfour · 1789743295 · focus · HN ↗
    I'll have to remember this one the next time I hear the phone/poverty argument made in bad faith.
    rcxdude · 1789751837 · focus · HN ↗
    They still exist, though. And in my experience people in vulnerable positions have somewhere between zero and one phones at any given time, without necessarily any good continuity between them.
    kps · 1789766384 · focus · HN ↗
    > The poorest country I'm familiar with is Zambia, where about 90% of the population have a mobile subscription.
    Only 85%¹ of the population are over the age of 4. Smart kids they've got.
    ¹ <a href="https://populationpyramids.org/zambia" rel="nofollow">https://populationpyramids.org/zambia
    stonogo · 1789774835 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think "fuck 10% of the population" is as strong an argument as you seem to think it is.
    tavavex · 1789740157 · focus · HN ↗
    What if you just can't have internet on your phone? Like if the computer is connected via Ethernet and there's no wifi network you can connect to? What if you're abroad and have no roaming? And the ultimate question about a person that the modern world can barely conceptualize - what if you have a dumbphone? Or what if your smartphone is lost or stolen or dead and you need to access some account? That last one has happened to me, and I sure am glad I know the key passwords that I need for survival.
    These may seem like nitpicks, but there's probably a thousand rare scenarios like these that exist. You inevitably have to consider them when you're moving from punching in letters and numbers that you remember in the normal, low-tech way to a complex networked two-device workflow.
    limagnolia · 1789741080 · focus · HN ↗
    If my phone is lost or damaged, I would buy a new, cheap Android phone and sync my passkeys to it. But I am curious why one would need to login to a website in order to survive? If one did have say a severe medical condition that somehow required a website in order to manage, I guess I would concede that maybe passkeys aren't the best way to secure such a life-sustaining website.
    horsawlarway · 1789742946 · focus · HN ↗
    > But I am curious why one would need to login to a website in order to survive?
    They use bank like Ally or Discover with no physical branches.
    They use a mortgage provider like Rocket mortgage with no physical branches.
    They use a medication delivery service with no physical customer facing pharmacies.
    They have an employer that only facilitates reimbursement for expenses via online tools.
    etc...
    I guess "survive" has a sliding scale, but if I lost access to critical accounts... my life is going to FUCKING SUCK in a non-trivial and very impactful way almost immediately, on many fronts.
    And if your answer to that problem is "well, just call them"... then we're right back to the point the article is making: "An account’s security is still dictated by the weakest recovery method"
    Passkeys aren't a meaningful improvement in security - assuming you do actually have decent password hygiene like a password manager.
    epihelix · 1789744587 · focus · HN ↗
    If your phone is lost, how are you going to sync your passkeys to your new cheap android? In a passkey-only future, you cannot login to your Gmail account without your passkey, which is only on your phone, which you've now just lost.
    What am I missing? Either we retain passwords as backup for a lost or stolen device - in which case, all the security concerns are still there - or we only use passkeys, in which case we've added a clear nonrecoverable point of failure in the system.
    AlienRobot · 1789749235 · focus · HN ↗
    What confuses me is that for a long while we told people to not write their passwords on a sticky note, to not write them in plain text somewhere.
    Then we introduce all these "security" mechanisms that make it literally impossible to recover an account without backup codes.
    Where do you store the backup codes? The average person, if they store it at all, will store it on a plain text file or in a sticky note.
    Except that this creates a much more brittle system. Systems are safe when they are routinely tested/used. If you routinely have to enter your password, you are aware you need it. If you don't need your password, and you never have to enter your backup codes, you won't feel the importance of them until you actually need them.
    It's the whole "I have backups" vs. "the backups actually work" problem except it's pushed onto the users who have zero technical knowledge.
    dwaite · 1789795236 · focus · HN ↗
    FWIW my break-the-glass actual use of backup codes is for access to my password manager.
    Everything else which has ever given me a backup code... gets stored in a secure note in my password manager.
    It is just another knowledge-based factor. It is one that they are reasonably sure you aren't spreading around the internet. It is one that the site gets to pick rather than the user. But in reality, they are a often just a way to try to reduce some support and identity verification costs.
    The path to get to the password manager is the case where the backup codes truly matter, because without them there may not be a way for support to restore access. Those codes may be your only way of regaining the master encryption key.
    But that also winds up being part of the trade-off of security vs user friendliness. Some password managers are way easier to get back into.
    tavavex · 1789744697 · focus · HN ↗
    Doesn't being able to sync your passkeys by entering your conventional password somewhere eliminate the whole point of passkeys? It just shifts the point where you can enter the password to recover your data to a less convenient place.
    When I said "survival", I meant it in the "being able to make do with few resources in a time of crisis" way, not that you will literally die if you can't access an account. Losing a crucial device without a fallback of being able to log in somewhere else quickly can mean immediately losing access to payments (the most crippling, especially if you're not home), being stranded in an airport or even not having an identity document (in countries with digital ID systems). Any of these happening can lead to enormous losses in time, money or quality of life, depending on when and where this event hits you.
    nightski · 1789741756 · focus · HN ↗
    You can consider them by keeping a password. Bam done. Don't ruin the auth experience for everyone else because of niche scenarios.
    vel0city · 1789746752 · focus · HN ↗
    Passkeys can exist on devices other than phones, so your entire premise is moot.
    tavavex · 1789747083 · focus · HN ↗
    What? Did you read the thread? I never said passkeys can only exist on phones. The whole conversation is about "how do I log on with passkeys if something happens to my trusted device?". The parent comments talked about just using your phone, I'm saying there's lots of situations where someone might not have access to either a phone or an internet connection for it. And when this happens, you really don't want to be left without a way to access all vital digital services.
    vel0city · 1789747369 · focus · HN ↗
    > I'm saying there's lots of situations where someone might not have access to either a phone or an internet connection for it. And when this happens, you really don't want to be left without a way to access all vital digital services.
    And when that happens I'm usually glad my credential is a passkey on my keyring, as chances are if I don't have my phone and I haven't auth'd on to some computer I almost certainly don't have access to my password vault. But hey, my passkey works just fine without my phone. And I can trust that once I unplug my authenticator and log out of that session, there's no long lasting credentials left behind. I don't get that with passwords.
    Aren't passkeys great?
    pixl97 · 1789747921 · focus · HN ↗
    You go to country X (USA sounds good to put in here).
    You get mugged.
    They take your phone and keyring.
    They can't do anything with it since it's locked, but you don't have it.
    Aren't passkeys great?
    jazzyjackson · 1789749244 · focus · HN ↗
    They can’t do anything with it
    I have a backup key at home
    Mission accomplished
    rcxdude · 1789751712 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have a plan for getting home without access to any of your accounts?
    pixl97 · 1789752139 · focus · HN ↗
    You're asking way too much foresight in this thread I guess. There are some people who have lived lives without any series of unfortunate events, they can't even imagine what the world can serve up.
    dwaite · 1789796673 · focus · HN ↗
    I've done a mock "what if I wake up naked in Tokyo" for my own recovery several times, mostly because I keep things really tied down.
    I have not yet done an actual test within Japan, however.
    realityking · 1789801188 · focus · HN ↗
    If nearby (some country) any credit card or even my ID card will get me home. I can walk into a branch of my bank and - with some waiting and paper work - I should be able to get enough cash to get myself home.
    Abroad I’d head to the nearest consulate of my home country. Might be difficult to get to if it’s in a far away city. Hard to prepare for abstractly.
    mrweasel · 1789752178 · focus · HN ↗
    But the problem is that you can't really backup passkeys and because people are frankly frequent tricked into using them, they have no good recovery options.
    I know plenty of people who only have a phone, no other devices. They don't backup that phone, they should but they don't. They don't use a password manager either, maybe they should, but they don't.
    My issue with passkeys are that they are designed for a reality that don't exist, or at least only exists for people who are already doing a lot to secure their devices.
    pixl97 · 1789753964 · focus · HN ↗
    > designed for a reality that don't exist
    They are designed for a wealthy technologically inclined user with a very stable lifestyle and trusted resources and connections to other people. You know, the exact people who developed them.
    vel0city · 1789756541 · focus · HN ↗
    > But the problem is that you can't really backup passkeys
    The individual passkey? Maybe not. But I don't really need to backup the passkey, I can just have backup passkeys or other backup authenticators, including complicated stored one-time passwords.
    To answer your earlier hypothetical, I'm out traveling and I'm mugged. Well, hopefully, I'm not mugged in the part of the travels where I'm carrying truly everything at the moment, and I can just go back to the hotel room and re-auth with a device I saved there Problem solved, no big deal. If I lost truly everything while I'm out, I'd do as suggested elsewhere here and call home to get a trusted friend/family member to read me off the one time password saved at home or whatever.
    > My issue with passkeys are that they are designed for a reality that don't exist
    The reality of passwords being hijacked is absolutely a reality of today and is a constant issue for tons of people.
    > I know plenty of people who only have a phone, no other devices.
    And I really don't get why we can't also teach these people to also have a little token they use that can also be a part of their online identity. And sure, for certain kinds of accounts have appropriate levels of recoverability, but for the normal authentication workflows its so much better in so many ways.
    pixl97 · 1789757637 · focus · HN ↗
    At this exact same level I posted this.
    >They are designed for a wealthy technologically inclined user with a very stable lifestyle and trusted resources and connections to other people. You know, the exact people who developed them.
    And here you go posting
    > I'd do as suggested elsewhere here and call home to get a trusted friend/family member to read me off the one time password saved at home or whateve
    If you read what I posted you see why you live at a particular place of privileged and are seemingly incapable of putting yourself in another persons position where these things do not hold true.
    "If you are a white male earning over 100,000 a year in a stable relationship with living family members, excess savings in the bank, in a stable first world country everything is going to be fine and the rest of you can get fucked" --what you keep repeating in different ways.
    vel0city · 1789758766 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree every kind of account should have a reasonable level of recovery process in place.
    Also, you're posting incredibly racist and sexist statements here. Why does race and gender matter here?
    Stop being racist.
    pixl97 · 1789766244 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean I was pointing out that you were being racist and sexist from a position of privilege without realizing you were doing so. A kind of systematic failure caused by not realizing our choices as developers has real world impacts on the less privileged.
    vel0city · 1789767465 · focus · HN ↗
    You're being racist and sexist by assuming wealthy westerners or those in stable relationships or those being able to call home to family are white males. If that's not racist I don't know what is. I don't think it takes being a white male to be able to call home to family when traveling internationally. You're assuming a point of view is invalid due to someone's race and gender.
    Quit being racist and projecting identities on people.
    This is about people who would have a hard time recovering digital identities. I imagine there were lots of white males fleeing war in Europe who probably struggled to get access to accounts backed with things like passkeys and other forms of 2FA. But I guess to you their struggles don't matter.
    Its almost like you including gender and race was just your own projections of your own hatred for a particular group. You should probably think about things when painting people with such a wide brush of "white males" when trying to paint people in a derogatory fashion.
    I spent a chunk of my life homeless. Don't project some identity on me that's not valid, or that I just totally lack some perspective due to your assumption of my race or gender. Its not a fair thing to do, its literally racist and sexist.
    You could have tried to make your point without throwing in racist and sexist comments by just saying "wealthy western software developers" or whatever.
    tavavex · 1789753943 · focus · HN ↗
    Great, now I just need to get back home to use my uncompromised accounts (which would have still been protected by my device as long as they're not NSO Group, but whatever). Gee, it seems my tickets back home were taken with my stolen phone! Not to worry, they sent me an email confirmation, so all I need to do is log into my passkey-protected email on my friend's phone and have them download my ticket in addition to theirs, or print it at a public computer. Oh wait
    realityking · 1789801567 · focus · HN ↗
    As long as you still have your passport, which you’d need for international travel anyway, you can get your boarding pass at the airport without any hassle.
    staticman2 · 1789754452 · focus · HN ↗
    Wouldn't I have the same problem with passwords? I would lose my phone and be unable to two factor log in to my Gmail account or bank from someone else's device?
    pixl97 · 1789757300 · focus · HN ↗
    A passkey or a 2FA requiring a non-trivial device are functionally equivalent. Passkeys and app driven 2FA are the same when shit goes bad.
    TeMPOraL · 1789760033 · focus · HN ↗
    With passwords? No.
    With 2FA? Yes. 2FA is almost just as stupid and almost just as bad for regular users as passkeys are, but it got adopted due to historical loophole - by far the most popular form was TOTP delivered via SMS, then "authenticator" apps, both of which keep the code transferable - you can receive it on one device, transfer to yourself or someone else (which is a feature, not a bug) via any channel, and get it to work. Plus, SMS didn't allow for vendor lock-in, which is arguably why they're so hated in security circles (SIM-jacking is real, but doesn't scale anywhere near enough to warrant deprecating it as mechanism for regular users).
    dwaite · 1789796126 · focus · HN ↗
    I have over 2,000 accounts. The majority of them have unique passwords. I can count the services that have passwords that I know on one hand, with quite a few spare fingers.
    > Passkeys were created specifically to close that loophole.
    Credential sharing? I have a family share with passwords and passkeys in it. Passkeys most certainly didn't stop this. They did add friction to having a user being duped to share their password to someone claiming to be tech support, since you can no longer request plaintext secrets be sent over arbitrary channels.
    > Plus, SMS didn't allow for vendor lock-in, which is arguably why they're so hated in security circles (SIM-jacking is real, but doesn't scale anywhere near enough to warrant deprecating it as mechanism for regular users).
    SMS is an ugly user experience and more importantly is expensive. Now a lot of services do emailed codes when they don't have a regulatory reason to require SMS - an even worse user experience, but less expensive.
    We have authenticator apps which use a standard OATH setup, and quite a few platforms which have integrated support to try to sand over the worst part of the UX. Unfortunately they just didn't become popular, and OATH fails the same regulatory requirements that emailed codes fail.
    f30e3dfed1c9 · 1789914822 · focus · HN ↗
    "SMS is an ugly user experience"
    No, it's fine. Most common example, I log in to my bank, they send an SMS, I copy the code and paste it into the web site. Works fine and I don't have to pick up my stupid phone, like I would if I used an authenticator app instead.
    "and more importantly is expensive."
    Not for me. The bank made several billion dollars last quarter, don't think it's a big problem for them, either.
    vel0city · 1790022813 · focus · HN ↗
    Most common example, I log in to my bank, they say they sent an SMS, I sit there waiting to access my account, then 20 minutes later the SMS finally actually gets delivered after I've given up and left to do something else. Rinse/repeat.
    Or another example, someone hijacks my SMS'es, and then they log in as me.
    SMS sucks. SMS is insecure.
    The amount of times I've experienced customers complaining about SMS 2FA not working well despite it being on their carrier failing to deliver the messages in a timely fashion really showed me how terrible it is.
    f30e3dfed1c9 · 1790026187 · focus · HN ↗
    Dunno what to tell you. Several possible points of failure there. Maybe your bank's system for sending SMS just sucks. Maybe you're in a place with poor mobile network coverage (which is a real problem for SMS 2FA, I agree, having lived in a place with nearly none for several years).
    But for me, where I live now, with my bank, and my phone carrier, it works great. Never had a problem that I can think of. Typically, the SMS arrives within seconds. It's the least annoying and most reliable 2FA method I use.
    I'm not that worried about potential security issues. Sure, it's a possible problem, but pretty low on the list of things to worry about.
    vel0city · 1790269641 · focus · HN ↗
    The least annoying and most reliable form of 2FA I use is tapping the touch sensor, doing a biometric face unlock, or typing in my PIN on the device I currently have in my hands. Its miles less annoying and way more reliable.
    f30e3dfed1c9 · 1790281562 · focus · HN ↗
    Glad that works well for you. Does not work well for me. I do not care for laptops except when necessary and have come to loathe my phone. Everything important is done with desktop computers that do not have cameras or touch sensors, so biometrics can't work.
    In general, I do not have a "device... currently have in my hands" and having to pick one up and unlock it is annoying.
    vel0city · 1790288639 · focus · HN ↗
    > I do not care for laptops except when necessary and have come to loathe my phone.
    Good news then, this also works on desktops, even ones without cameras or touch sensors. But sure, keep moving goalposts.
    f30e3dfed1c9 · 1790295332 · focus · HN ↗
    "Good news then, this also works on desktops, even ones without cameras or touch sensors."
    All of the 2FA methods forced on me by my employer and most online services that require it require a phone app. So no, it doesn't work on a desktop.
    vel0city · 1790303856 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a discussion about passkeys. You've now shifted the goalposts again to "only the 2FA options my employer allows".
    Which, while I can't speak to your specific employer, tons are moving to support passkeys. Largely because forcing these apps suck and SMS sucks.
    f30e3dfed1c9 · 1790304700 · focus · HN ↗
    "This is a discussion about passkeys."
    No, that's not the way it went. I joined the conversation, such as it is, to respond to the guy who said "SMS is an ugly user experience" to say no, it's fine.
    I haven't shifted any goalposts: I've basically just reiterated to you that I think it's fine and better than the alternatives. Not a word about passkeys from me.
    vel0city · 1790340258 · focus · HN ↗
    "SMS is an ugly user experience"...compared to passkeys.
    It's not fine that SMS messages get delays. It's not fine that it requires a cell phone plan. It's not fine that it requires you to have cell service. Its not fine because it's insecure.
    So many times I've had coworkers and clients frustrated they are pushed to letting their employer force SMS 2FA on their personal numbers. When they could just use passkeys these days baked into their work machines and not have those problems.
    f30e3dfed1c9 · 1790356360 · focus · HN ↗
    Settle down. I responded to the statement "SMS is an ugly user experience and more importantly is expensive" to point out that from my perspective, neither one of those things is true. The "user experience" is fine and to me, the cost is zero.
    Then you decided, for some unknown reason, to jump in and... do something, but I'm not sure what. Seems like you're trying to convince me that my own view of my own experience is wrong somehow but — and one might think this would be obvious, but apparently not to you — that's not gonna work.
    kyleee · 1789775254 · focus · HN ↗
    I think there exists a vein of contempt for anyone not fully embracing our bold new world, so many implementers etc. get the double bonus of alienating and frustrating all of the non conformers
    enriquto · 1789742605 · focus · HN ↗
    > willing to enter your login details on a machine you don't control?
    Are you talking about your phone here?
    roryirvine · 1789743465 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, your personal security posture might very well preclude that.
    But, again, if you don't trust your phone then how likely is it that you will be prepared to trust a public computer?
    Yokolos · 1789739200 · focus · HN ↗
    Steam does this. If I want to login, it shows a barcode I can scan with the app and it logs me in without needing to enter my login information. Phone needs internet access, doesn't need to be on the same network as the device I'm logging in on.
    I assume the QR code contains a token for the device, which is used by the app to authorize the login and the server automatically logs in the client on the device with the matching token.
    Seems a lot safer to me than using my login credentials on a potentially unsafe device.
    limagnolia · 1789740813 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, this is how it could work, or it could display a code you type into your phone.
    jerkstate · 1789739864 · focus · HN ↗
    what good is a phone if it isn't on a network?
    cpburns2009 · 1789743062 · focus · HN ↗
    Have you ever been in a large building with awful cell reception and no wifi access?
    cesarb · 1789744446 · focus · HN ↗
    > what good is a phone if it isn't on a network?
    1. It might be on a voice network but not on a data network; for instance, if you don't have a data plan.
    2. Modern smartphones are actually a hybrid of a traditional cell phone and a traditional PDA, and you might be using it for the PDA part.
    jon-wood · 1789744635 · focus · HN ↗
    There's a whole set of fallbacks built in to the standard, including Bluetooth, local network connections, and going via a relay server. All of them eventually end up with your device signing something and handing that back to the browser on the other device to complete the authentication flow.
    thwarted · 1789749042 · focus · HN ↗
    I cannot speak to how accurate your description is, but this description sounds like there are multiple weak points and multiple attack vectors that open this up to increased risk of compromise, undermining the very security stance it's supposed to provide.
    sgerenser · 1789751984 · focus · HN ↗
    See my response above... I believe the description is incorrect, and bluetooth is required to prove physical proximity.
    LocalPCGuy · 1789754361 · focus · HN ↗
    The spec is quite thorough and well thought out in this regard. Despite what it "sounds like" when described, it is very secure, even with a variety of implementations. What is far weaker is that most sites that offer passkeys also offer a multitude of fallback recovery options.
    sgerenser · 1789751954 · focus · HN ↗
    AFAIK, the "scan this QR code" method of signing in with a passkey on a phone on a device w/o the passkey requires Bluetooth. There's some type of handshaking that goes on in order for you to prove you're in physical proximity of the device you are logging in on, to prevent phishing attacks.
    sgerenser · 1789761161 · focus · HN ↗
    Since I might have made someone mad... to clarify, as I understand it, Bluetooth is absolutely required for this "Scan the QR code" flow to work. However, it's also possible the actual authentication traffic to travel over a different pathway (wifi, cellular), but the bluetooth part is always required though to prove proximity. So on e.g. a library computer without Bluetooth enabled, you would not be able to log in with a passkey on your phone.
    dwaite · 1789794620 · focus · HN ↗
    Right - you can treat the protocol as having:
    1. Initiation (QR code, NFC in draft)
    2. (Proximal) negotiation (BLE key exchange)
    3. Communication (over websockets or a direct L2CAP channel)
    The challenge is that a devices without bluetooth (at least today) don't have another common way to wirelessly judge proximity. A desktop/laptop without bluetooth likely either doesn't have NFC, or has bluetooth disabled by policy and would likely have cross-device passkeys disabled by policy as well.
    MrMetlHed · 1789756965 · focus · HN ↗
    Is this why I keep getting notifications that such-and-such a website wants access to devices on my local network? I've been denying those left and right lately and didn't understand what on earth they needed access to that for.
    TeMPOraL · 1789760363 · focus · HN ↗
    Android 17? If yes, then that's because they added a new permission specifically to block apps from LAN access, then bundled it together with "nearby devices" because the concept of "local network" is apparently too difficult for normies to understand or something.
    dwaite · 1789793940 · focus · HN ↗
    That's likely Google's implementation of Local Network Access (<a href="https://wicg.github.io/local-network-access/" rel="nofollow">https://wicg.github.io/local-network-access/).
    The browser delegates passkey plumbing up to the core platform typically, so it already should have the appropriate permissions.
    alienbaby · 1789743118 · focus · HN ↗
    That's still a terrible solution. Plenty of people don't have phones that can do that, or dont have e it with them when they do etc..
    RHSeeger · 1789748171 · focus · HN ↗
    The fact that nearly every passkey implementation is lacking in a variety of very impactful ways... is a very good reason to _not_ use passkeys.
    When every passkey interaction is a different variety of user interaction nightmare, it's not very convincing that it's a good idea in the first place
    judge2020 · 1789767551 · focus · HN ↗
    They're talking about a web-based QR code solution separate from passkeys.
    Passkey QR codes are only WebAuthn via CTAP hybrid transport (with BLE verified proximity)
    wpollock · 1789751299 · focus · HN ↗
    > The website should display a qr code you can scan with your phone that allows you to then login...
    A malicious website can display a QR code too. I think this "feature" could cause some of the security issues that passkesys were intended to solve.
    I use Keepass and the free tier of Dropbox, to keep my passwords strong and available across multiple devices. (Dropbox not required, you can store the database on a thumb drive.) Backups are no problem.
    Keepass (or KeepassXC) stores other data as well, including the correct URLs for sites. So my workflow is simply to click the URL from within Keepass, copy the username and password, and paste them into the login screen. So easy even an adult can do it! (Humor attempt)
    For convenience, Keepass database can be unlocked with either a password or biometrics (your fingerprint).
    (Not affiliated with Keepass, just a happy longtime user.)
    LocalPCGuy · 1789754218 · focus · HN ↗
    That QR code from a malicious website will not actually communicate with the malicious website with authentication from the correct origin, most QR code phishing scams do not actually use passkeys but rather fall back to trying to get the user's fallback login information (if any). By spec, if the domain does not perfectly match the domain where the passkey was originally created, the phone (or passkey provider) will fail to find a matching passkey. And the domain is derived, not provided by the QR code data (it's all in the spec).
    Basically, it's very hard if not basically impossible to spoof a QR code to access the real passkey via a malicious site. (caveat, without already having compromised something like the user's DNS, maybe? Even then the site would likely fail the cryptographic checks.)
    Ferret7446 · 1789784554 · focus · HN ↗
    The phishing protections of passkeys also works against "malicious QR codes". Which is a great example of why passkeys are kind of good, you stop needing to worry about a lot of attacks.
    dwaite · 1789793697 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, the passkey flow QR code contains a public key, and a local key exchange is done over bluetooth to prove proximity. That is used to set up a confidential channel.
    That means attackers need more than to display a QR code, they also need a local presence (radio).
    xp84 · 1789741566 · focus · HN ↗
    My suggestion would be to not do that. But keep a password and an offline TOTP app if you must. It’s still an option.
    judge2020 · 1789743636 · focus · HN ↗
    Only if they’re a bit old. Nowadays WiFi chips double as Bluetooth chips on newer platforms.
    cesarb · 1789744089 · focus · HN ↗
    > > What if the computer you want to log in on doesn't have Bluetooth?
    > Only if they’re a bit old. Nowadays WiFi chips double as Bluetooth chips on newer platforms.
    What if the computer you want to log in on doesn't have a WiFi chip?
    It doesn't have to be an old computer; for instance, the desktop computer I built last year uses a wired gigabit Ethernet connection to the router right next to it, and doesn't have (or need) any WiFi or Bluetooth chip.
    RHSeeger · 1789748399 · focus · HN ↗
    The computer I just replaced had neither wifi nor bluetooth. It was a desktop device and had no use for either.
    reaperducer · 1789744715 · focus · HN ↗
    Only if they’re a bit old. Nowadays WiFi chips double as Bluetooth chips on newer platforms.
    That's a technocratic reply, not one that is useful in the real world.
    As noted by the person you're replying to, it's not his computer. It's a public library.
    Most computers in non-residential settings will have various features locked down, including Bluetooth.
  2. esseph · 1789738775 · focus · HN ↗
    Passkey on NFC/USB hardware token (x2)
    They're cheap enough if you lose one it's not the end of the world. Goes on your keyring. Doesn't require esim management. Use NFC swipe/usb-plug-in + pin to use.
    pavel_lishin · 1789739842 · focus · HN ↗
    The problem isn't the cost of replacing it, the problem is - how do you log in when all your passkey-bearing devices just got flushed down the toilet?
    remix2000 · 1789742220 · focus · HN ↗
    How is that different from accidentally deleting your keepass database? Or forgetting your password? I think it’d be easier for me to forget than find myself trying to flush all my hw tokens…
    pavel_lishin · 1789742547 · focus · HN ↗
    I can back up my keepass database, and I can write down my passwords.
    faust201 · 1789743200 · focus · HN ↗
    Same way. A majority generally have a old phone that was already signed in to google. Or if they remember only Apple ID and password (one very difficult password) + sms. They can login on to a new phone.
    Everything is SYNCED immediately.
    What if you have a ransomeware that destroy everything on the same day your house and all backups burn down. And you cant get it from immutable backups as you wrote that decryption key in paper. And the bank will not allow you to access it as the govt deported you elsewhere.
    megous · 1789743593 · focus · HN ↗
    I can back up my FIDO2 (non-)resident keys too. In the end it's just a piece of HW with some secret material inside. non-resident FIDO2 keys are easier to back up, because the master secret seed is fixed and shared for all origins and there's nothing stored on the key.
    remix2000 · 1789747275 · focus · HN ↗
    I can get another hw key (if one of mine breaks, which I, surprisingly enough, have not yet managed to achieve)
    And since I have at least two at all times, the possibility of one of them breaking changes… not much really.
    Paper can burn or get tossed, backups files can go corrupt, and I really don't understand what is that extra risk hw keys introduce…
    There is at least one valid (in my opinion) reason to not like hw keys though: they cost real money to acquire, so you probably want an extra margin in your budget for the unlikely case they indeed decide to break.
    esseph · 1789755399 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    Telaneo · 1789784547 · focus · HN ↗
    > Also... Is flushing your whole keys down the toilet a problem you run into often?
    It's a potential catastrophe I'd like to avoid if possible, but the catastrophe is not inherent to any other key I have.
    House key: Make new copy for 10 USD. Alternatively, get a locksmith to unlock the door and change the lock. Even more alternatively, break a window or door. I still get into my house.
    Car key: Make a new copy for >10 USD. Alternatively, call roadside assistance and get them to tow me somewhere I can get a new key. More inconvenient, still very possible.
    TOTP 2FA and passwords: Password databases can be backed up, and so can TOTP seeds. It's inconvenient to do so, but I can at least still just leave copies around everywhere I can, so that it's extremely unlikely that I'll be completely locked out.
    Yubikey: Making copies is literally impossible, so I'll need to buy two or three keys from the get go, and get them all out every time I need to add a new key. This is a huge inconvenience that no casual user will ever do (they might do 3-2-1 if it was set-and-forget, but Yubikeys aren't). If I don't do this, I lose permanent access to my accounts. There is no safety valve built in to the system. If I lose my key, I'm fucked.
    faust201 · 1789743001 · focus · HN ↗
    But a majority don't do that. For them let them use passkeys. If the possibility is once in 10 years then I am happy to do that. A majority is happy to do that.
    And yes, Google or Apple - dont say you should not keep passwords in your database and sync it with dropbox. DIY.
    Rest of us want convenience.
    vablings · 1789743331 · focus · HN ↗
    Copy pasting my other comment from an earlier thread
    FIDO2 USB Security key -> Bitwarden (With master password) -> Every other method (topt/password)
    I have 3 FIDO2 USB Security keys, One I carry with my persons at all times, one that stays with my main machine at all times and an offsite backup that is sitting in a friend's server, if my house burns down, I can either physically collect the key or use USB-IP to authenticate back into bitwarden and enroll a new key. (Actually all 3 are at home right now but that's ok)
    notatoad · 1789743466 · focus · HN ↗
    what do you do when you forget your password? and what is the relative frequency of the average user forgetting a password vs flushing their authenticator device down the toilet?
    vel0city · 1789746828 · focus · HN ↗
    Its going to be hard to flush my desktop and my laptop down the toilet.
    sfink · 1789752445 · focus · HN ↗
    I recommend a reciprocating saw with a metal cutting blade to get them into small enough pieces. Do not try to flush them all of the pieces at the same time. It's not just about whether they fit or not, they also need to be light enough for the water current of the flush to carry them all the way through. Otherwise, they may end up in the water trap and hinder your future use of the appliance. For small partial blockages, it may be possible to consume some extra fiber in order to be able to "sweep" some of the metallic remnants along, but this will void both your warranty and your bowels.
    I am a doctor -- and a lawyer and an orbital mechanics specialist, as well as a highly respected behavioral therapist -- so you can trust my advice. Also, feel free to consult an AI on this topic; it would make for an amusing benchmark.
    pavel_lishin · 1789756569 · focus · HN ↗
    I believe in you.
    ndriscoll · 1789762284 · focus · HN ↗
    Pretty easy for a lightning strike to simultaneously destroy both though unless you always unplug your computers during a storm.
    esseph · 1789853715 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    lxgr · 1789741174 · focus · HN ↗
    Enrolling two devices stored in different locations for every sign up is extremely annoying.
    I suspect that most people that ostensibly do this actually only enroll one for non-critical accounts and then depend on some fallback mechanism.
    iamnothere · 1789742953 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a legitimate problem, and one of the few cases where a third party login provider makes sense, at least for non-critical “apps”. If both tokens can be authorized to that provider, then you don’t need to enroll any more tokens for apps using that provider. The difficulty is creating a trustworthy provider system without weakening security (the provider shouldn’t be able to login without you) that doesn’t collect information about you and which can’t lock you out from all your accounts.
    I’m not sure what work has been done on this since Mozilla Persona. I certainly wouldn’t want Google and Apple, or governments, to be the sole gatekeepers.
    lxgr · 1789743986 · focus · HN ↗
    Why would you choose that over a synchronizing passkey manager?
    A third party OAuth provider puts you at the mercy of the service provider, the other can work fully on your client side even if the app provider were to disappear tomorrow.
    The only advantage I can think of is that you have a centralized place to revoke credentials in case your password manager does get compromised.
    iamnothere · 1789744691 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    UltraSane · 1789745191 · focus · HN ↗
    "A third party OAuth provider puts you at the mercy of the service provider" This is they key issue with trusting a third party to manage my passkeys, they can also BLOCK them and lock me out. An exception is if the passkeys are synced to all your devices and cannot be remotely wiped. I think this is how Apple works.
    iamnothere · 1789745846 · focus · HN ↗
    I didn’t think of this in the moment, but you’re right, this is an even bigger risk than compromise. There’s regularly a thread here about someone getting locked out of their cloud accounts, and now we’re going to gate everything behind those same accounts? Horrible idea.
    lxgr · 1789763465 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, I'd absolutely not use Apple or Google for my passkeys, even though they now at least seem to support exporting them to other platforms.
    lxgr · 1789763388 · focus · HN ↗
    Then don't, there are several open source synchronizing passkey implementations!
    limagnolia · 1789743472 · focus · HN ↗
    The problem with hardware tokens is that they 1) Only store a limited number of logins, 2) It is very difficult to keep them in sync- every time you need to add a passkey, you have to get them both out, which makes it difficult to keep one a in a secure safe to keep it safe from damage/loss
    This two fatal flaws are what limits their usefulness to enterprise SSO and perhaps some other limited uses where the organization has the ability to replace tokens. (Even in a distributed enterprise, enterprise SSO may not be a good fit for hardware tokens, if they can't get replacements out to employees fast enough).
    esseph · 1789755277 · focus · HN ↗
    > the problem with hardware tokens is that they 1) Only store a limited number of logins,
    1) It's one passkey used over and over, so it only takes 1 slot.
    > 2) It is very difficult to keep them in sync- every time you need to add a passkey, you have to get them both out, which makes it difficult to keep one a in a secure safe to keep it safe from damage/loss
    2) With SSO used across enterprise exactly like you're talking about, works fine without having to reregister over and over. Been using this and have implemented it myself for years.
    3) much cheaper than a phone with a much cheaper recovery path
    4) no path is a free lunch, you're always going to be making compromises somewhere, it's the nature of security - it is adversarial
    ndriscoll · 1789761611 · focus · HN ↗
    > it's the nature of security - it is adversarial
    Yes, this is the issue. People don't like how adversarial security people act, and how they force things onto people. It's fine if a corporation wants to have some internal policy since they're the ones eating the cost if an employee can't work or whatever. Less so if individuals are forced into these wonky setups for no benefit (e.g. now I have to run and maintain and backup a Vaultwarden server just to log into my HSA, which is absurd).
  3. da_grift_shift · 1789740931 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  4. darkwater · 1789743530 · focus · HN ↗
    >This is solved by passkey-implementing software and devices (with Bluetooth) allowing you to log in with a QR code (Webauthn via CTAP hybrid transport).
    Ok but how do I share my Netflix or Spotify accounts for example with those?
    judge2020 · 1789743927 · focus · HN ↗
    In general you shouldn’t - Netflix[0] really should get proper invite-based family sharing, and Spotify’s subscriber agreement has a section that defines Premium as a “Single-user Paid Subscription” and thus can’t be used by multiple people, legally (and you might be at risk of getting banned if they detect it)
    However, passkeys can and are available to be shared via password managers. They’re not locked to the secure chip on the device where they live usually. iOS’ Passwords app has a share button and 1Password lets you share passkey-containing items.
    In fact, the QR code login feature makes it even easier to do a one-time sign in to your account for a friend, if you don’t want them to be able to login to your account indefinitely.
    0: Netflix doesn’t support passkeys because their main audience is people signing in via smart TVs and whatnot, which largely don’t support CTAP or Webauthn in general)
    pixl97 · 1789747691 · focus · HN ↗
    >In general you shouldn’
    Me to said companies: I will do what I want.
    brendoelfrendo · 1789752086 · focus · HN ↗
    Said companies to you: sounds like what you want is to get booted from our service.
    pixl97 · 1789752413 · focus · HN ↗
    Me: Invents more new ways of being problematic for the company spreading the ideas to millions of others decreasing their profitability to almost nothing.
    Me to company: Damn, guess you shouldn't have been an asshole about it, kind of backfired on you.
    mahboi · 1789755810 · focus · HN ↗
    Ok so when is Netflix going unprofitable?
    LevGoldstein · 1789759063 · focus · HN ↗
    The responsible product owners will already have bounced 18 months prior after tweaking the stats to falsify the customer satisfaction rate and grabbing their bonus on the way out.
    tzs · 1789751176 · focus · HN ↗
    The same way you share them now: sharing the account name and password and doing whatever you currently do to deal with any 2FA they occasionally toss in.
    If they also allow passkeys as an alternative form of login that doesn't need 2FA you can use those to make the account sharing more secure.
    When setting up sharing with someone first change the password to something else, and then share the account name and password. After they log in the can add a passkey to the account on their device or devices.
    Then you can change the password back to your real password. When they want to use the account they login with their passkey.
    If the service doesn't accept login passkeys but does allows passkeys for 2FA, you have to use real password sharing, but at least they can have a passkey for 2FA which may be easier than how you know handle 2FA.
    How do people handle 2FA with account sharing? If the site uses TOTP you can give them the QR code that you received back when you made the account (you do save a screenshot of such QR codes for backup, right?).
    But how do you handle SMS 2FA, which seems to be far more commonly offered than TOTP?
    For email 2FA I suppose you could set up a filter on your incoming mail that forwards any incoming code emails to the people you shared with, and hope that the time limit on the code is long enough for this to work.
    mahboi · 1789755838 · focus · HN ↗
    2FA is lowkey designed to reduce paid account sharing. It's always those services that are so eager to get people 2FA'd.
    Velocifyer · 1789762120 · focus · HN ↗
    Can't you just share the TOTP secret key?
    mahboi · 1789762348 · focus · HN ↗
    TOTP is unfamiliar or hard to use for most people, so they use SMS. Most sites don't support TOTP either.
    Even if you use TOTP, it's not designed to be shared, for example look up what hoops you need to jump through to export a single TOTP code in Google Authenticator. And they used to not even have that option; they told you to set up multiple TOTP codes on each website instead. Even on 1password I had to look up a tutorial on how to import a TOTP code cause the menu is in a very non-obvious and deep spot.
    darkwater · 1789832854 · focus · HN ↗
    I've shared with non-tech people a few accesses with TOTP codes and it's just a WhatsApp message away "hey dad, enter 12345 when asked".
    mahboi · 1789870491 · focus · HN ↗
    Code is different from key. The secret key is how he can get new codes without you having to deal with it every time he logs in.
  5. epihelix · 1789744151 · focus · HN ↗
    Awesome. I'll just find the thief and ask nicely, shall I?
  6. deaton · 1789749164 · focus · HN ↗
    Sign in with a QR code is dangerous though because at that point theres very little stopping QR phishing and forwarding the bluetooth request to your browser. See the most common Discord scam.
    judge2020 · 1789767941 · focus · HN ↗
    > forwarding the bluetooth request to your browser.
    This isn't a thing. Discord's QR Code scanning is entirely a feature they made unrelated to passkeys or bluetooth. Passkey auth using a QR code has a step that verifies the proximity of both devices using BLE.
  7. basch · 1789749938 · focus · HN ↗
    What if my phone is dead? Stolen?
    In the same vein as 2fa, going up to a fresh computer and trying to log into anything is now a nightmare. Every service has a 2fa that somehow loops into another provider that also has 2fa.
    And some 2fa, if not many, make accounts weaker. Apple's solution to get around 2fa is to put in SOMEBODY ELSES phone number that I trust, as a backdoor. It's an insane solution. And its normalized, and nobody questions it.
    Terr_ · 1789750541 · focus · HN ↗
    While we're at it, the insanity of those "recovery questions", made even worse when many companies demand the same ones.
    basch · 1789751903 · focus · HN ↗
    but you can type anything in the recovery box.
    its just three additional passwords.
    should you type the same brother name in each time? should you even answer with a name?
    don't get me wrong, they were insane, but they can be repurposed.
    samspot · 1789752355 · focus · HN ↗
    Good luck remembering what you put there when asked 10 years later.
    Terr_ · 1789754229 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, many do not even allow you to enter in a custom question, which would be marginally better--at least for users who care about security.
    Then you'd have the option to craft a question which is (A) personally memorable (B) specifically phrased to avoid ambiguity, (C) not public or guessable, and (D) unique to a service.
    * "Where is your first pet buried?"
    * "While on vacation, The Noodle Incident happened in which city?"
    * In what year did you first see Example Band live in concert along with Alice and Bob?"
    basch · 1789793402 · focus · HN ↗
    put it in your password manager?
4. cryptoegorophy · 1789738303 · focus · HN ↗
  iCloud Keychain? Is there a reason not to use it? Aside from having android.
5. HaloZero · 1789738713 · focus · HN ↗
  My MIL setup a passkey accidentally on her Google account and now has no idea where it is. Removing it now requires her password which she’s also forgotten. But now for some reason on Google I can’t initiate any type of forgot your password flow because of how Google sets up things and I have zero clue where she stored the passkey.
  1. UltraSane · 1789741549 · focus · HN ↗
    Doesn't the passkey have to be on her phone or computer?
    HaloZero · 1789742192 · focus · HN ↗
    It should be but haven’t checked her apple vault. I checked Google password manager and her windows password manager and there nothing in either. She might have used her phone and it’s in her iOS vault which I’ll check next. But this is what makes this entire passkey thing a mess. She’s 75, she didn’t do this on purpose and the ecosystem is just a mess
    ryandrake · 1789743608 · focus · HN ↗
    Even the concept of "where on the PC" has been totally annihilated by OS vendors and app developers. Is it on the filesystem? Is it on The Cloud? Is it vaguely "In An App"? Is it in some "Secure Enclave"? Who the fuck knows anymore? And the apps are no help--they insist on blurring the lines between local and cloud, hiding full paths, and generally just saying "Don't worry about where your data actually is. We pinky swear to be able to find it for you!"
    HaloZero · 1789744701 · focus · HN ↗
    Windows prompting her about Bluetooth for the pass key threw me too. I thought for sure she had clicked the wrong thing before I realized that somehow her widows pass key requires communicating to some device? Maybe her phone? No idea
    jonathanlydall · 1789750524 · focus · HN ↗
    I know on my Windows if I sign into icloud.com I have the option of using a passkey which I do by scanning a picture with my iPhone and it also using Bluetooth, presumably to prove physical presence of it.
    lukan · 1789743948 · focus · HN ↗
    Everything about it is.
    Also in the process of helping my dad with his phone, 76 and my grandmother 99. Maybe this works better with Apple, but the biggest problem on Android is, that it feels like every update shuffles everything around. Allmost no point in explaining, that they can solve some things on their own.
    And all the time new things on the screen, new features they don't understand, need nor asked for.
    xboxnolifes · 1789744374 · focus · HN ↗
    Im young and I dont even bother learning how to use my Android phone's new features since it feels like everything moves all the time.
    monknomo · 1789746229 · focus · HN ↗
    if any android pms or execs read this comment, it should be like a slap in the face. a scathing indictment of the state of their product.
    just hang their heads in shame and walk into the sea
    Shacklz · 1789748241 · focus · HN ↗
    We're at a point where the biggest possible contribution to humanity of many PMs in big corps would be to just... drop dead. Feature-freeze rather than furthering the enshittification, as that seems all they're capable of.
    I'd wish the world would just become boring again.
    kyleee · 1789774322 · focus · HN ↗
    They’d just hire more to replace them and keep chaos machine running
    Synthetic7346 · 1789747239 · focus · HN ↗
    That's because most people at Google use iPhones as their primary phones, they hardly know or care about the UX
    UltraSane · 1789744643 · focus · HN ↗
    Apple does seem to have one of the best and most secure passkey implementations.
    RHSeeger · 1789747430 · focus · HN ↗
    A little snarky, but...
    It _is_ true that it's more secure when even the people that the passkey was created for can't use it.
    tim333 · 1789744009 · focus · HN ↗
    They seem unnecessarily opaque about it all.
    I just made one for PayPal using my MacBook which seems to have ended up in Bitwarden rather than the mac thing. But there's nothing in Bitwarden to say list all passkeys. Not sure how I check elsewhere. Maybe they should email you "you have created a paypal passkey in Tim's Bitwarden" or something. Then at least you could search the email for "passkey"?
    I wonder if I can use Bitwarden on another device with that? I honestly don't know.
    MrDrMcCoy · 1789749361 · focus · HN ↗
    You can't search for passkeys, but you can search for logins by URL and check the much shorter list for passkeys. The good news is that having the passkey in Bitwarden means you can use it on another device.
    TeMPOraL · 1789759678 · focus · HN ↗
    Who the fuck knows?
    I for sure don't. Websites only know there is a passkey associated with my account, and the OS only knows there might be one on the device, or maybe on another device, and offers me options to check here or do a Bluetooth/QR Code dance, and when all of them fail, I'm no closer to knowing where the damn passkey is.
    rstuart4133 · 1789772601 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  2. brandon272 · 1789743810 · focus · HN ↗
    Ran into the same issue with my dad the other day. Has a passkey set up on his Google account. Bear in mind that he doesn’t know what a passkey is, so Google obviously sent him through a pattern at one point to get him to create one.
    He didn’t have access to it the other day and we needed access to his account. He didn’t remember his password, and we were unable to reset it because you need the passkey! No other options to authenticate for a reset were available.
    Add in the fact that I was trying to help him with this by long distance call and you can imagine the frustration.
    psunavy03 · 1789747745 · focus · HN ↗
    As someone with elderly parents, the Googles and the Microsofts of the world really don't seem to give a shit about the elderly anymore, if they ever did. Random UI updates and workflow changes with no announcements, thinking they're "intuitive."
    One of these days the product managers who push these things thinking "oh, it's easy, you just . . ." are either going to be explaining it to confused Mom or Dad, or they're going to be elderly and irritated themselves. Until then I hope they stub their toe or step on random Legos regularly.
    hedgehog · 1789749223 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not even elderly but I would really like an e-mail client with a stable UI. I used to like Apple Mail but it's been a buggy mess since Catalina. It doesn't even sort or search mail reliably any more. It's basically a trope at this point but a robot-rewrite-in-Rust seems inevitable at this point.
    Terr_ · 1789750418 · focus · HN ↗
    A while ago I helped an elderly relative migrate off off a copy of Eudora that they'd been using for many years. (To Thunderbird.)
    Originally it was about difficulty migrating to a new laptop with a different version of Windows, but I was quite firm about it because when I realized it wasn't able to do secure connections for some reason, so the instant they took their laptop to public Wi-Fi...
    Terr_ · 1789768564 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    jorvi · 1789748353 · focus · HN ↗
    Sounds like both you and OP didn't set a phone number and / or recovery mail. If you had those, Google would offer to let you recover through those, passkey or not. And likewise, if you don't have those, Google has no way to recover the account for you even if you only have a password flow.
    They also clearly warn you, every time you log in to the account: set a recovery phone / mail, and if you skip it warns you that they will be unable to recover your account in case of trouble.
    I think Google, Facebook etc are terrible companies for having 0 human customer support (unless you have millions in billings), but you can't blame them for your own mistakes.
    lokar · 1789754352 · focus · HN ↗
    I set my father (late 70s) up with a physical passkey (yubikey), and a backup key. He uses it for the important accounts (google, apple, bank, etc).
    It’s been fine.
    ChoGGi · 1789757547 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep, I've never had Google, PayPal, or Amazon ask me about a passkey with a yubikey.
    lokar · 1789765737 · focus · HN ↗
    The current ones are passkeys
    bootlooped · 1789758945 · focus · HN ↗
    This is why I've always been a fan of these. They are easy for laypeople to understand.
    jesseendahl · 1789771842 · focus · HN ↗
    Yubikeys generally have much worse recovery scenarios than passkeys do, for consumers. In enterprise if you lose your yubikey, an IT admin can help you get back into your account. If you lose a security key as a consumer, you're generally in a much tougher account recovery situation.
    lokar · 1789780685 · focus · HN ↗
    You need extra backup keys in a safe place. They don’t explain that well.
    0cf8612b2e1e · 1789784082 · focus · HN ↗
    Not all services let you enroll multiple keys. Amazon, with all the money in the world, was guilty of this for a long time.
    Practically, it is a huge challenge. I would want my day to day fob, an onsite backup, and an offsite backup. That’s a lot of hassle and potential for mistakes. To even register the offsite backup means I need access to it. Remotely copying a password database is so much reliable
    atanasi · 1789810288 · focus · HN ↗
    If you use a security key only for the most important accounts like Apple or Google, keys are set up once and then unchanged for years.
    jesseendahl · 1789771724 · focus · HN ↗
    >He didn’t remember his password, and we were unable to reset it because you need the passkey! No other options to authenticate for a reset were available.
    Google treats both a password and a passkey as a primary factor, and if you forget either of them you have to go through their account recovery flow: <a href="https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
    AFAIK there's nothing different about the recovery scenario for a Google account in that state regardless of whether it has a password in use as its primary cred, a passkey in use as primary credential, or both.
    brandon272 · 1789775197 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks. Upon further investigation we could have hit “Try another way” on the account recovery process UI a few times to get to a workable account recovery method.
    Would be nice if Google would lay your recovery options out for you (which I am used to it doing in regard to 2FA if you are doing a regular log in) instead of having to hammer the “Try another way” link repeatedly as it cycles through options.
    ssivark · 1789787200 · focus · HN ↗
    WDYM -- I thought "try another way" is supposed to list all possible options instead of cycling through them!
    brandon272 · 1789836785 · focus · HN ↗
    It does when I log in. You click "Try another way" and then it brings up a menu of options you have for 2FA. For some reason they have designed the account recovery flow to be different.
    So, if you are used to the "Try another way" flow on login, it can be confusing to see an entirely different "Try another way" flow on account recovery.
6. mikepurvis · 1789739121 · focus · HN ↗
  I'm just storing my passkeys in 1password, which means they're synced across my two computers and phone and also means I gave up any kind of hardware security.
  Oh well.
7. winstonwinston · 1789739859 · focus · HN ↗
  > I've accidentally set up passkeys just by clicking an okay button a few times in the past and had to go back and figure out how to undo it after being blocked from login on another computer (which computer was I on again?).
  No doubt there exist services that do not offer recovery method for passkey or mfa enabled account. But this is entirely on them (the service), to blame for, not the passkeys or the users. It’s bad implementation.
  1. kyleee · 1789778788 · focus · HN ↗
    Bad implementations of an otherwise sane/fine technology can sink the technology. Here’s to hoping that happens with passkeys
8. throwaway27727 · 1789742627 · focus · HN ↗
  > how do I log in on a device that I don't own?
  You scan the qr code from your phone and it logs you in on that device. The experience is pretty amazing, honestly.
  1. xboxnolifes · 1789744676 · focus · HN ↗
    They mean if you dont have access to your devices.
  2. Bolwin · 1789752904 · focus · HN ↗
    What if you don't own a phone?
9. TacticalCoder · 1789743142 · focus · HN ↗
  > Passkeys do marginally improve security against MITM and phishing attacks ...
  The tragedy of passkeys is that they're a step back from the security offered by the likes of Yubikeys.
  But because passkeys are pushed by both Google, Microsoft and Apple: there is is simply no fighting these three. It is impossible.
  Passkeys won not because they're better (they're not and the entire concept of "secret behind a hardware security module" that can be transferred to another system defeats the whole point of a HSM in the first place) but because the powers-that-be decided that passkeys are to be used.
  It's still a win: the commoners are better served with passkeys.
  But a secret in control of Google/Apple/Microsoft that can be backed up is not a secret I control: it's a complete step back from yubikeys.
  Passkeys won and we better get used to them (and, yup, there are usability issues as you mentioned).
  1. hexfish · 1789758256 · focus · HN ↗
    Why not just use a passkey backed by your Yubikey?
10. dspillett · 1789744088 · focus · HN ↗
  > The biggest problem, though, is how users are pushed into it without any warning or knowledge of what they're signing up for.
  My irritation is that I know what it is, and I've said no thanks many times, but I'm still asked regularly by the likes of Amazon, and they usually pick a time when I'm trying to order something quick¹. It is one of the growing number of things in life that simply have no “no” option, it is always “yes or later” - I wouldn't mind so much if “later” meant “I know the option exists, I'll ask for it if I change my mind, don't bother me again otherwise”. Call me cynical, but if companies are trying to nag me into something I very much doubt the main benefit is mine. I'm sure there are many people out there who go along with it simply because they are sick of being asked repeatedly.
  I also don't see the real benefit with the way things are often implemented anyway. When the credential recovery process is sending a magic email or text, making SMTP or SMS the weak link of the chain just as it often is for passwords so I'd be giving up my preferred workflows for no better security.
  ----
  [1] A short while ago I actually ordered from somewhere else because of this, bitter twit that I am. “I wonder if I can get this almost certainly drop-shipped item on next day delivery via Prime?”, [goes to Amazon to check], [get passkey prompt], “sod it, I'll go back to the original place”.
  1. ProjectArcturis · 1789745059 · focus · HN ↗
    I dropped Amazon entirely a couple years ago because they didn't provide any way at all to separate my credit card from my kid's Fire tablet and I didn't want to be on the hook for thousands in charges because he pushed the wrong button. It's remarkably easy! It has made basically no change to my life except that I'm a little smug about not using Amazon.
    gxs · 1789748237 · focus · HN ↗
    What do you use instead? My main reason for using Amazon is the shipping which no one else can come close to
    Same or next day shipping on most things I order is wild, when something goes beyond a 2-3 days on Amazon it even feels odd
    And the “do you actually need the item/s that fast” isn’t the response I am looking for
    MrDrMcCoy · 1789748980 · focus · HN ↗
    Shop.App doesn't have everything, but they do have a lot and many merchants have fast shipping options. I always try to search them and Newegg before trying Amazon.
    sandmn · 1789812457 · focus · HN ↗
    Newegg marketplace is a funny place. Not only many items are more expensive than elsewhere, I had my orders delivered literally in Amazon or Walmart packaging. There are genuine merchants that made a choice to work with Newegg but there are many resellers from other stores as well.
    jonahhorowitz · 1789754497 · focus · HN ↗
    Target/Walmart/BestBuy. They both have fast shipping options as well as store pickup. Sometimes (if you live somewhere more rural) they have _faster_ shipping times than Amazon.
    kps · 1789756965 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not in the US, but friends there tell me that Home Depot routinely delivers from the local store within a few hours.
    (Here, unfortunately, their web site is useless crap.)
    ethbr1 · 1789791302 · focus · HN ↗
    Walmart / Home Depot / Lowes / Kroger are generally going to beat Amazon on quickest delivery for most people for most items, if they want to, by virtue of their local brick and mortar footprint.
    One reason I imagine Amazon pushed so hard for short delivery times was knowing eventually their legacy peers would leverage this against them.
    al_borland · 1789834208 · focus · HN ↗
    Not to mention a long delivery time gives people more opportunity to simply go to the store and get something, while they’re out running other errands.
    I live in a well populated suburban area. If I’m willing to actually leave my house, I can get most things much faster than Amazon can deliver them. This also helps keep those local businesses running, so shipping doesn’t become the only option in the future.
    deepsun · 1789761160 · focus · HN ↗
    Home Depot/Lowes often have faster delivery than Amazon (like literally delivered in a few hours or next day morning).
    salad-tycoon · 1789762008 · focus · HN ↗
    I live in the country. Amazon takes days to ship out here, though sometimes it has 1-2 day. Walmart has same day shipping (not delivery, regular shipping) and is cheaper or comparable to Amazon.
    screamingninja · 1789748762 · focus · HN ↗
    Could you create a separate account for the tablet without that credit card? Just curious.
    red-iron-pine · 1789752399 · focus · HN ↗
    but then how do you pay for things if/when you want to buy the little one something?
    you either add the card then remove it, get a separate card, or find a way to use credits somehow -- but in the case of the latter two, Junior could still slam a few buttons and eat up all available funds on that card -- just without the impact of your regular card.
    thesuitonym · 1789756910 · focus · HN ↗
    This is something that Apple really got right. My kids can initiate any kind of purchase they want (At least, those that are allowed based on Screen Time controls) but every purchase stops and waits for approval from me or my wife. Even if the item is free. No faffing about with credits, or extra cards, or setting limits.
    machomaster · 1789761879 · focus · HN ↗
    Just use a bank with a decent service (like Revolut), create a separate card number for your kid (10s within the bank app), where you put more money when needed and can easily put the number on hold or activate it whenever you please.
    Smoosh · 1789769960 · focus · HN ↗
    Like this Revolut?
    <a href="https://cybernews.com/security/revolut-data-breach-75-million-records/" rel="nofollow">https://cybernews.com/security/revolut-data-breach-75-millio...
    machomaster · 1789808981 · focus · HN ↗
    > After the publication went live, Revolut reassured that the review is still ongoing. "We have so far still found no indications of any breach."
    > "We have checked the user and card identifiers contained in the alleged records against our systems, and none of them correspond to valid or genuine Revolut identifiers," the spokesperson said.
    usr1106 · 1789795971 · focus · HN ↗
    A bank that cannot be used in the browser has no decent service.
    machomaster · 1789810461 · focus · HN ↗
    The parent had a practical problem. I told him what kind of simple banking feature would easily solve it. I also mentioned a bank, which has it for sure.
    For sure, this feature is not a Revolut-exclusive. Plata from Mexico should also have this and much more, from what I have read.
    If American/European banks don't have such a simple feature, this speaks volumes about them.
    Your comment has a vibe of "a bank that doesn't have a local office has no decent service". To each their own, I guess.
    serf · 1789833344 · focus · HN ↗
    >I also mentioned a bank
    if you're not in the US. revolut in the US is a fintech group with a bunch of bank partners.
    kalcode · 1789761882 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean, you can gift things when you purchase them, not sure why that can't be a way. But I still agree it's silly to have the customers find work arounds.
    fragmede · 1789772908 · focus · HN ↗
    privacy.com lets you generate credit card numbers on the fly
  2. Telaneo · 1789746658 · focus · HN ↗
    > My irritation is that I know what it is, and I've said no thanks many times, but I'm still asked regularly by the likes of Amazon
    The people responsible show a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to consent.
    ryandrake · 1789747334 · focus · HN ↗
    Silicon Valley has no concept of consent and boundaries. If computing was a night club, "Silicon Valley" is the guy who goes up to every woman saying "Want to dance? [Yes or Maybe Later]?"
    pixl97 · 1789747582 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think you carried on the analogy far enough.
    >Want to dance? [Yes or Maybe Later]?, also drink this [Yes]"
    sippingabonedry · 1789749047 · focus · HN ↗
    A better analogy would be slipping something into her drink whilst handing her a 12-page stapled terms of service agreement in which she unknowingly gives full consent.
    pixl97 · 1789757828 · focus · HN ↗
    Meta: As you see the anal box as already been checked with unerasable ink.
  3. nntwozz · 1789747612 · focus · HN ↗
    > The biggest problem, though, is how users are pushed into it without any warning or knowledge of what they're signing up for.
    Gf just logged in to hotmail without knowing her password because of a popup. I tried to explain but there was no understanding to be had.
    This is how the world works. You either understand it or suffer it unknowingly.
  4. sandeepkd · 1789748857 · focus · HN ↗
    I think this is the biggest reason why these category of discussion happens in the first place, there is a gap between what technology is good for, whats its ideal for and then the products motivation to push it on to the user assuming it would give a good name to the company.
    Passkeys are one of the few protocols that supports against phishing (Accidentally giving away your credential to some rough site) so it has its benefits and more so for enterprise users.
    It becomes challenging and is ill suited when its pushed to general public. A middle ground could have been to give it as an option to user instead of forcing it on the user. For some reason its not cool enough.
    From a company's perspective
    - Authentication is a friction and the discoverable credential (where you just click on username button and log in) reduces the friction for user, making it easier for user to make that purchase decision - Account take over attempts (ATOs) do take a dip, saves quite a lot of resources on customer support side for the company
    tyre · 1789758042 · focus · HN ↗
    IMO it’s well-suited to the general public!
    What is the average person’s threat model? Re-using passwords.
    What is their most common annoyance? They forget their passwords.
    Built-in password managers are great for this. But they’re not universal (e.g. I believe using Apple Passwords on Mac doesn’t carry over to Android.)
    Passkeys are amazing. They’re basically magic to the average person. No typing passwords; no remembering; simply vibing, securely.
    I don’t think people are regularly logging in to a huge number of accounts on other devices. Maybe they are! I doubt it.
    TeMPOraL · 1789758628 · focus · HN ↗
    > What is the average person’s threat model? Re-using passwords.
    Wrong.
    As article points out, it's not having access to their account.
    Followed by not being able to easily delegate access to their account to a trusted third party (like a spouse, a friend).
    Password reuse addresses the first problem, however imperfectly. Ability to share password over any channel, including analog, addresses the second.
    Passkeys defeat both.
    jesseendahl · 1789761339 · focus · HN ↗
    Account recovery works the same with passkeys as with passwords. You click “I forgot/lost my passkey” and get a link sent you via email that lets you create a new one.
    Passkeys can also be shared with other people like spouses or friends, just like passwords.
    TeMPOraL · 1789762643 · focus · HN ↗
    > Passkeys can also be shared with other people like spouses or friends, just like passwords.
    How? They're literally designed to not be, because they're trying to prevent phishing, and you cannot in general case distinguish phishing from legitimate delegation of authority.
    HappMacDonald · 1789774373 · focus · HN ↗
    > Account recovery works the same with ...
    Huh, that is a really funny way to spell "the primary login method used by every not-tech-savvy person I have ever met before".
    TeMPOraL · 1789807977 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh right, I started to notice it too - couple non-tech people around me seem to treat "password reset" as default login flow.
    I guess that's one effective way to cope with security industry bullshit.
    duskdozer · 1789810596 · focus · HN ↗
    This would explain why so many places have been starting to force me to log in with an email instead of a password.
    hakavlad · 1789793885 · focus · HN ↗
    >You click “I forgot/lost my passkey” and get a link sent you via email that lets you create a new one
    I don't trust my email provider.
    throwaway2037 · 1789804981 · focus · HN ↗
    Woah. Why not get a better email provider?
    raron · 1789811837 · focus · HN ↗
    And now you have to log into your email with a Passkey that probably you lost at the same time you lost your Passkey to the original site (e.g. lost or stolen device).
    If you are not using Passkeys for your email (and the site supports that type of account recovery), then you still have only the security of passwords, just with additional steps.
    TeMPOraL · 1789823118 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, it puts people in a bind. The current status quo of TOTP 2FA with recovery codes is bad, but it's probably the best we have - because applying passkeys to your primary e-mail is beyond stupid at this point, it's putting your digital life in mortal peril.
    dspillett · 1789822605 · focus · HN ↗
    > Account recovery works the same with passkeys as with passwords … get a link sent you via email
    Making the email account, an often attacked resource that is always online, a single point of failure. I don't mind relatively unimportant accounts being that weak, for instance where the only reason to have an account at all is to separate your preferences from someone else's, and you don't actually care about security, but for accounts where there is significant PII or payment details or other sensitive information it is a terrible idea.
    A second problem with this is that for many their email account is the same as their account where their passkeys are backed up. What if you have lost your passkey due to Google locking you out for no readily apparent reason and you don't have the online influence needed to get them to take you seriously (instead being trapped in the support bot loop)?
    I still run my own mail server, and if I didn't my important mail accounts wouldn't be with someone like Google (I do have a gmail address, but that account is only really used for testing other accounts when needed), so that isn't a problem for me, but most people can't be bothered with that faf¹ so usually end up with one of the big providers.
    --------
    [1] It isn't actually that much faf², until those occasions when it is³, but more faf than most people care for, especially those that don't enjoy tinkering with technical matters.
    [2] Just quietly ticking over as long as I remember to regularly verify it is patched up-to-date, and keep an eye out for zero-day issues concerning the parts involved
    [3] When there is a deliverability problem, where I host it has problems so I need to make sure the backup is synced and then switch over to it, when there is a relevant zero-day and I have to rush a patch in (or take other remedial action until a fix is available) then investigate to make sure I wasn't quietly affected, etc.
    sandeepkd · 1789763571 · focus · HN ↗
    I guess it really depends on how one choses to define general public, probably an assumption has been made that everyone has their own personal device.
    > Built-in password managers are great for this. But they’re not universal (e.g. I believe using Apple Passwords on Mac doesn’t carry over to Android.
    1.Only security keys (single device credentials) are what you can use across the device not the regular platform based one
    2.Browser based password managers do provide you with that interoperability across the platforms and in fact the password manager as an supported passkey authenticator allows you do the same
    hulitu · 1789907520 · focus · HN ↗
    > Passkeys are amazing. They’re basically magic to the average person.
    Passkeys are crap. They are just random password prompts to give a false sense of security.
  5. deaton · 1789749007 · focus · HN ↗
    Amazon does benefit from increased account security; they don't have to refund non-fraudulent orders after all. For most people, a passkey is genuinely more secure.
    hakavlad · 1789794213 · focus · HN ↗
    What about availability? The article is precisely about that.
  6. FireBeyond · 1789751526 · focus · HN ↗
    Amazon and PayPal are horrible for this. Clicking out of the dialogs and modals to actually get logged in? (Shout out to PayPal for a dark pattern that implies "continue to login" but is actually "continue to set up PassKeys", and you actually need to "cancel" to actually login).
  7. jareklupinski · 1789755159 · focus · HN ↗
    > by the likes of Amazon, and they usually pick a time when I'm trying to order something quick
    they have an algorithm that can predict the likeliest moment you'll not see or panic-hit the "ok" button in haste
    dspillett · 1789821789 · focus · HN ↗
    I think it is simpler than that: they ask irritatingly often, and I'm often looking quickly to see if I can get something on next-day delivery, so the two factors coincide.
  8. f30e3dfed1c9 · 1789916977 · focus · HN ↗
    "if companies are trying to nag me into something I very much doubt the main benefit is mine."
    Bingo.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.