this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
59 points (96.8% liked)

Programming

17443 readers
156 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe I'm misinterpreting something here, but wouldn't that mean, I can't just access my account if I lose my auth device? Am I supposed to always have a passkey device locked somewhere safe?

[–] LPThinker@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My understanding is that these passkeys can be securely synced - either via your device cloud (e.g. iCloud), or hopefully soon via your password manager. So not that different in terms of UX than current 2FA, but more secure in the backend.

[–] mabcat@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I just tried this out with Github. My passkey lives in 1Password so it's backed up and synced across devices. It also lets me sign in with normal MFA/TOTP if I don't have the passkey, or use a recovery code. Incidentally @brian@programming.dev this is working in Firefox now.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, it's just a password with a different name.

Seriously, what is the functional difference between this and stricter password requirements? I don't see it.

[–] robobrain@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

Passkeys use a challenge/response protocol that doesn’t transmit any actual secrets. This makes them phishing resistant as you can’t just “type in your passkey secret” it gitnub .com

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're supposed to have multiple devices (phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, etc) that all store your passkey securely (it can't just be sitting on the SSD...). You're also supposed to backup your passkey.

Yes, if you lose access to all your devices it could prove challenging to access GitHub... but that's a pretty unlikely scenario and most people should be willing to pay the price (what self respecting programmer travels anywhere without two or three devices?)

You are also supposed to backup everything you have on GitHub elsewhere... so it shouldn't be a total disaster if you lose access. It'd just be annoying. And presumably GitHub has some kind of recovery process for someone who's lost access to an account? What if the repository maintainer dies? Someone else has to be able to take over.

On the other hand - if my bank required a passkey... then I'd probably switch banks. If all my stuff is stolen or destroyed, I still need access to my money. And if someone compromises my bank... well it's just money. The stakes are far higher if a popular GitHub repository is compromised.

[–] desmaraisp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As someone who works with people too stupid to log in to github without having to reset their password every time and having to take a full hour to figure out how to use their recovery method, that's going to be a pain in the butt. I can foresee lots of "hey, quick question"s if they really do phase out simpler login methods. It's good to have options for sure, but the standard login method should stay imo