I appreciate this article. Passkeys kinda came out of nowhere to me and I haven’t liked them since day one. So it’s nice to have my gut feeling vindicated with some actual info.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2026
389 points (94.9% liked)
Technology
88253 readers
3140 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
You know what u don’t like. Fucking xøcode sent to my email or a «magic link».
Srsly fuck off. Let me type my password
One complaint I have is browser insistence that a site must have a proper certificate to work at all.
I provide self hosted software with passkey support and probably over 90 percent of my users never set up property certificates due their private networks. So the passkey function is impossible for them.
Which means they must use passwords. Which are far worse in this scenario. The practical risk either way is arguably low for them, but to take a more mitm/phishing resistant technique and then force it to not work because mitm or phishing might be in play...
One complaint I have is browser insistence that a site must have a proper certificate to work at all.
I provide self hosted software with passkey support and probably over 90 percent of my users never set up property certificates due their private networks. So the passkey function is impossible for them.
Which means they must use passwords. Which are far worse in this scenario. The practical risk either way is arguably low for them, but to take a more mitm/phishing resistant technique and then force it to not work because mitm or phishing might be in play...
That doesn't make sense, you're suggesting using security (passkeys) over an insecure channel (HTTP). Even internal websites should use TLS. Am I missing something?
In an ideal world, they would be using TLS with a properly set up CA even for internal.
In practice, I can't get most of them to do that, and instead they just click through the certificate warning and use it over https, but without certificate assurance.
So it's still over https, though a fair argument can be made that hardly matters if the certificates aren't validated, and browser ecosystem doesn't consider 'TOFU' a valid approach like it generally is for SSH.
Anyway, the point is that passkeys are 'security' by virtue of not ever divulging the secret on the line. They can't be sniffed, they can't be captured by phishing, they can't be retained for later use after a MITM. So the refusal to operate even with informed user consent means the user just uses a password, which is weak to all those things. In a scenario where it could provide the most mitigation is a scenario where the browsers refuse to let it try. Even the built in password manager will still auto-fill without certificate validation, one of the most risky places to be 'helpful'.
Yeah, this is the key. Distributing your own cert catalogues on a system level negates this issue. But then also that needs to be managed.
But key signing is essential anyways and I've often thought the CA system could be used outside of the client to server signing process.
This isn't a good article @ouch. It's dull, meandering and conflates issues.
Both Apple and Google want your identity anchored to their operating systems.
That's true regardless of passkeys and why is Microsoft excluded here?
Logging into accounts on devices you own is the ideal scenario for passkeys. When you have to handle a colleague’s computer, it gets much more inconvenient. You could plug in a hardware key, but you don’t always have access to the ports.
What sort of drivel is this? Is anyone reading the article? I doubt it. Sorry, I'm not logging into important accounts on a colleague's computer, regardless of being unable to squat and plug in a usb-dongle. The last statement even concedes that passkeys are an improvement for 99% of the user-population. It's an improvement for 100% of the user-population. Like usual this is just drivel generated from friction around 'newness'. It's different--which automatically becomes scary for some users. The writing is just not coherent and there's zero critique on passkey's design and technicalities, of which there are things to criticize.
Get a physical passkey and if you have more than 100 accounts you have a problem. Buy two and use one as a backup in case you lose your first. Keep it in a safe and if you forget your safe's combination... well, I guess we should abolish safes too: terrible account recovery support there. Yikes!
Passkey's themselves can be protected with a PIN--the software I've used does not limit it to numbers. It can be your 'master password' if you want. This is a technical complaint of mine as all software I've used reference it as a PIN (personal identification number), which means numbers only. Except other characters are allowed. I'm not sure what the official spec. states.
🎶Security is Theatre🎶
Good article.
Currently passkeys are too much of a vendor lock-in to big tech.
Bitwarden support alone does not change that.
Microsoft 365 implementation of passkeys is sacrilegious somehow.
It requires only the Authenticator app from Microsoft and can use nothing else to create the passkey. The way this is implemented on iOS means that Authenticator comes up as an autofill option BUT IT ONLY SUPPORTS M365 and is useless for anything else. Leave it to Microsoft to take an open standard and bastardize it to the point of it being MORE CONVENIENT to just type a damn password.
The authenticator requirement was for regular MFA, with passkey you can use others like yubikey. BUT your admin can lock it to certain vendors so they could have selected Microsoft only.
I’m the admin. Every time I try to open it up, I only get guides for doing it on a regular, personal MS account.
Wait, you type passwords? KeePassXC's auto-type awaits!
You realize password managers just open up another attack vector right?
I agree the passkey user experience needs work, but man do I enjoy it over the haphazard 'passwordless' website login that just sends you an email.
I get it, they're just skipping an attack vector and basically relying only on '2FA'. But now I have to go to a different app/tab, copy a code, and return to the site instead of letting the password manager fill stuff in for me. Some, like kickstarter, let you still have a 2FA code enabled so you have to grab your code from whichever authenticator and go to your email. Really nice login experience out of nowhere one day. \s
The best implementation of this I've seen has to be Ghost, an open source self-hostable newsletter/patreon thing. They detect what email provider you have and when you enter your email, will display a link to open your inbox. It's super neat, and I haven't seen it anywhere else, and I'm also not sure how they do it. For something self-hostable, I'll definitely take one less attack vector.
Doesn't help if you're not using a huge provider such as Gmail or Hotmail
It worked with ProtonMail
A DNS lookup on a domain says who runs the email server for email users on that domain (that's how email senders figures out how to send you messages), and if that host is a known one then you can just pull the link to show. If you're self hosting email then a few solutions can be recognized and login shown by guessing that the email software's default URL pattern is used.
I figured it was something like that, thanks for the explanation!
load more comments
(3 replies)
I really wish that SQRL had taken off, as it solved most of the problems noted. It was effectively passkeys that you generated on the fly based on your private key (which you can back up and restore to other platforms if necessary) and the website domain by scanning a QR code (or clicking rh QR code if your on the same device) and sends the signed challenge to the website to auth you.
No need to login to your manager on random systems, no issues with platform lock-in, no worries about dedicated hardware, no worry about losing your access if your device dies (assuming you backup your shit).
Because the security is not better. I looked into it back then and it simply didn't have a chance.
FYI, passkeys can also do the Qr thing.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Passkeys and 1FA were always just a duct tape solution for users resuing basic passwords without having to set a stronger password requirement or relying on users to use a strong password.
I think Chrome and Firefox should have decided on making an API for their builtin password generation and filling functions, that way any password manager would be able to integrate with foolproof functionality out of box.
People already use browser auto gen passwords for the reason that its faster and usually has an account sync built in. Now it would work with any 3rd party solution as well which covers enterprise and security minded users as well.
Users won't use a password manager if it means you have to manually make an entry everytime you make an account.
view more: next ›