this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
271 points (86.3% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
2838 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Badabinski@kbin.earth 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right, but I can't require a second factor on a different device that operates outside of my primary device's trust store. I'm sure there is some way to make my desktop hit my phone up directly and ask for fingerprint auth before unlocking the local keystore, but that still depends on the security of my device and my trust store. I don't want the second factor to be totally locked to the device I'm running on. I want the server to say, "oh, cool, here's this passkey. It looks good, but we also need a TOTP from you before you can log in," or "loving the passkey, but I also need you to respond to the push notification we just sent to a different device and prove your identity biometrically over there." I don't want my second factor to be on the same device as my primary factor. I don't know why a passkey (potentially protected by local biometric auth) + a separate server-required second factor (TOTP or push notification to a different device or something) isn't an option.

EDIT: I could make it so a fingerprint would decrypt my SSH key rather than what I have now (i.e. a password). That would effectively be the same number of factors as you're describing for a passkey, and it would not be good enough for my organization's security model, nor would it be good enough for me.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I mean you don’t have to authenticate your passkey with biometrics, you can use a password.

I guess I’m not really picking up on what the benefit is you’re going for. You already have a What You Have and a What You Know or What You Are, and you want a second What You Also Have thrown in there. I mean, I guess having that as an option couldn’t hurt. but I also don’t think it’s really necessary.

Passkeys are already more secure than what you’re doing now. If what you’re aiming for is for them to be even more secure than that, then that’s an admirable goal. But as of right now they are worth it just for the fact that they’re more secure than existing solutions.