alt Hacker News2 things about passkeys I wish would be fixed.
1. Passkey prompts asking if I want to use a phone or security key when I only have one (or neither!) registered. The UI for this gets in the way and should only ever present itself if I happen to have both kinds of devices registered.
2. Passkeys should have had the portability and flexibility that ssh keys have from the start. Making it so your grandparents can use public key cryptography and gain a significant advantage in securing their accounts in a user friendly manner should have been the priority. Seems like vendor lock-in was the goal from the start.
Replies
Passkeys seem to be the best solution for users whose technical chops cannot be trusted, and who are also gullible enough to be a scam / social engineering target. Which, to my mind, describes a large enough chunk of audience of most popular services.
A tech-savvy relative of such a user should help them generate rescue codes, write them on a piece of paper, and store them along with all other important documents. Ideally the paper should also read: "Call me before using any of these codes! <phone number>."
>The UI for this gets in the way and should only ever present itself if I happen to have both kinds of devices registered.
I disagree. It is very annoying when some service fails to show an option on the grounds that I can't use it. It makes it difficult to resolve problems. If the option is just missing, I have no way to tell whether the company doesn't provide the option, whether the company made some sort of mistake (they can't provide an email option because they lost my email), whether I made a mistake, or whether the company just has a bad UI that tries to hide the option. And don't forget the situation where I tried to google online for some help in using the UI, I found a 6 month old Reddit post showing the option, and I can't figure out if the company changed the UI in the past six months.
They should show it greyed out with a note "no key of this type registered".
> Seems like vendor lock-in was the goal from the start.
Exactly. The passkey vendors state that the goal was to make phishing not just difficult but impossible. This means plaintext access to your credentials is forbidden forever, regardless of your level of expertise, and regardless of the complexity of the process to export/import them. The purpose of the so-called "secure credential exchange" is once again to prevent you from directly accessing your credentials. You can go from one passkey vendor to another, but you're always locked in to one passkey vendor or another.
Any credential system that makes it impossible to write something down on a piece of paper, take it to a new computer, and login to a website is just a gateway to vendor lock-in. You can manually manage your own ssh keys but for some reason not your passkeys.
As an Apple Mac user, what annoys me the most is that the use of passkeys in Safari requires iCloud Keychain, which of course requires iCloud and an Apple Account. [EDIT: Obviously I'm talking about built-in support. I'm well aware of third-party software, so everyone can stop replying to this now, please!] You can't do local-only passkeys, not even if you take responsibility for backing up your own Mac.
The passkey vendors took some good theoretical ideas, such as site-specific credentials and public-key cryptography, and totally mangled the implementation, making it hostile to everyone except themselves.
On Mac with the security key you can just press the button on the security key before choosing a path. It only looks like a required extra step but in practice it is optional.