[spockz]

Why? Passwords can be remembered and entered on other devices for recovery. The plethora of passkeys out there cannot.

A bit the same why although I love the keychain in macOS, it also makes me uncomfortable. Lose your phone and laptop in a theft or fire and you are locked out from your Apple account. Goodbye online presence.

[wkat4242]

That's exactly the issue I have with passkeys. All that lockin to big tech. I tried bit warden but most sites with passkeys didn't work with it (like Amazon and PayPal). And on android it only wants to use the Google version (I don't use a Google account on my phone so that's not possible).

[izacus]

None of what you wrote is true though, is it?

Amazon, PayPal work just fine on my 3rd party 1Password extension. And it works just fine on Android as a default passkey provider as well.

[wkat4242]

It does not work for me on my Linux PC with Firefox, PayPal simply refuses to enrol passkeys and Amazon tries but then gives an error. I haven't tried chromium as I don't have it installed.

I'll give it another try though. The last time was 1 year ago. I don't normally use Bitwarden so I have to set it up from scratch with vaultwarden etc.

[ximm]

This is probably a Linux issue. Mac OS and Windows implement the FIDO2 Platform API, which allows them to act as authenticators themselves. Linux does not. See https://github.com/linux-credentials.

[wkat4242]

With macOS and Windows I'm still stuck in corporate ecosystems though which was my point. I used to use Mac but I couldn't deal with the increasing iOSification and I only use windows now for gaming (VR) because it's such an awful OS.

But that's another point, I do use many OSes so being locked in to one ecosystem is not an option. I must also have the option to back up my credentials at all times (eg a cloud service will never suffice)

But yeah I should have mentioned Linux. I thought it was the norm here really especially among people advocating against corporate ecosystems.

[nixosbestos]

Jfc the quality of information shared on this site is abysmal nowadays.

I use Bitwarden, I use Android, I use Firefox on Linux. Passkeys work just perfectly fine on all of the sites listed here thus far.

[jeroenhd]

Bitwarden works just fine for Amazon. Works on my phone too. Even when supplying passkeys over QR code+Bluetooth to another computer, Bitwarden's Android integration works flawlessly.

I do believe you need Android 14 for that, though, so if your phone has been abandoned by its manufacturer/your ROM of choice, it'll break.

If Bitwarden is bugged out on your computer/phone for whatever reason, there are also alternatives like 1Password.

[wkat4242]

Hm I should try it again, the last time was about a year ago, maybe a little more. I don't normally use bitwarden so I have to set it all up with vaultwarden to make it work.

Is it possible now to export the passkey private key though? That was another thing at the time, apparently the fido consortium didn't want keys to be exportable.

But I'll try it again, good point. I think with paypal the issue was also that they refuse passkeys in firefox and I don't use chrome so I was stuck there too. With Amazon it tried to enroll me but I got a bunch of errors.

[AlotOfReading]

The "standard" answer is that you should either use synced passkeys, or enroll multiple passkeys with the provider. The problem is that some providers (e.g. Paypal, some banks) only support one passkey, and synced passkeys aren't supposed to be trusted for attestation (unless they're synced by Apple/Google/Microsoft).

[epaulson]

And every couple of days we see a post or a tweet about "Google/Apple/Microsoft just nuked my account with no notice and no recourse" so trusting them to sync passkeys rightfully makes some people nervous.

[stavros]

Whereas we never see a horror story involving passwords.

[AlotOfReading]

There are two problems with passwords. Reuse, and site breaches. The solution to the former is the same as passkeys: credential managers. Passkeys genuinely solve the second, in exchange for a vastly less comprehensible system (see all the uncertainty people have even here on HN) that doesn't support many of the ways people want to use authentication tokens.

[stavros]

No, the biggest issue with passwords is phishing. You can't phish a passkey.

[bgbntty2]

The problem with this is requiring everyone to own a device with a secure enclave or similar hardware capabilities because some people are prone to being phished. Let me choose the level of risk I find acceptable.

[NoGravitas]

Sort of. Passkeys push the phishing to the account recovery or passkey enrollment process.

[AlotOfReading]

Are there any credential managers that don't validate the domain with passwords? Sure, there are issues with PSL subdomain matching, but at the end of the day it's good enough in the real world. All the other stuff (MITM, malicious site, etc) falls under the other case I already mentioned.

[stavros]

That's not what phishing is. Phishing is convincing someone to give you a credential with a page that looks like the one they're supposed to give the credential on. Passkeys cannot be phished.

[immibis]

They must be paired with an alternative mechanism, unless you plan to unperson everyone who accidentally drops their phone in a river (this may be the plan for high-security services but it can't be the plan in general) and that mechanism can be phished.

Session cookies can't be phished either, so why aren't those sufficient?

[ianburrell]

Passkeys work well with password manager. The password manager also stores the long random password to get in without passkey. The advantage is that passkeys are immune to phishing. Sites also turn off 2FA for passkeys which reduces the hassle.

[coldpie]

Unless the spec authors declare your password manager to be on the official naughty list[1] and relying-parties choose to block clients on that list.

[1] https://passkeys.dev/docs/reference/known-issues/

[jeroenhd]

I think it's more than fair to document that some implementations lie about their intentional violation of the spec, even if that violation is done to make the login process smoother.

Still, I've never seen a website try to block Bitwarden's passkey management (though I've had plenty of issues because of its partial implementation of the API, especially in early versions) despite its spec violations.

For some of the implementations, user verification is a massive pain (as browser extensions often only have long and complicated passwords to authenticate) but for KeepassXC a quick and simple fingerprint/facial scan is an option, as it already offers integration into the native OS biometrics anyway.

[coldpie]

> Still, I've never seen a website try to block Bitwarden's passkey management

Ideally it shouldn't be possible, or at least it should clearly be an ugly hack for a website to be doing something like this. Instead the spec authors explicitly endorse blocking clients that they feel are non-compliant. I'm not going to use a login spec that encourages websites to ban me because of the software I choose to use.

> for KeepassXC a quick and simple fingerprint/facial scan is an option, as it already offers integration into the native OS biometrics anyway.

Man don't get me started on the passkey environment's bizarre obsession with biometrics. My desktop computer doesn't have a fingerprint reader or a camera, and if my OS (Arch Linux) supports that junk I've certainly got no interest in doing the work to set it up just so I can log in to a website.

[immibis]

Documenting is fine, but the passkey spec author has been recommending blacklisting these so they don't work. It will end in a situation where only the Apple, Google and Microsoft passkey managers are the only way to log into any website.

[yawaramin]

As I said earlier, this is functionally impossible because Apple devices don't offer device attestation data.

[coldpie]

Then I look forward to them removing the anti-feature and no longer maintaining the naughty client list.