▲ 391 ▼ I don't like passkeys | Ethan Hawksley (hawksley.dev) submitted 1 month ago by lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world 154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) SQuiRreL! Yeah, no idea why not popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (2 children) Because it doesn’t encourage vendor lock in to big tech. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago If SQRL was adopted, then the popular manifestations would have just as much vendor lockin, with built in password managers hosting the master private key without export option. Passkey is not inherently vendor lock in. It's mostly a consequence of password managers doing software passkeys and not making it reasonable to export private keys. It does have a mechanism a site can use to lock to "trusted vendors", but if a site does that, that is on them for being dickish. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 month ago Passkeys cross vendor sync is in the works right now and you can already self host with Bitwarden permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago it does not depend on the name. like, we all use Transmission Control Protocol and HyperText Transport Protocol, and nobody cares because they don't need to know. things can also be renamed before starting use in production, like we aren't normally calling tech by their RFC numbers permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (2 children) Because it doesn’t encourage vendor lock in to big tech. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago If SQRL was adopted, then the popular manifestations would have just as much vendor lockin, with built in password managers hosting the master private key without export option. Passkey is not inherently vendor lock in. It's mostly a consequence of password managers doing software passkeys and not making it reasonable to export private keys. It does have a mechanism a site can use to lock to "trusted vendors", but if a site does that, that is on them for being dickish. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 month ago Passkeys cross vendor sync is in the works right now and you can already self host with Bitwarden permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago If SQRL was adopted, then the popular manifestations would have just as much vendor lockin, with built in password managers hosting the master private key without export option. Passkey is not inherently vendor lock in. It's mostly a consequence of password managers doing software passkeys and not making it reasonable to export private keys. It does have a mechanism a site can use to lock to "trusted vendors", but if a site does that, that is on them for being dickish. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 point 1 month ago Passkeys cross vendor sync is in the works right now and you can already self host with Bitwarden permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago it does not depend on the name. like, we all use Transmission Control Protocol and HyperText Transport Protocol, and nobody cares because they don't need to know. things can also be renamed before starting use in production, like we aren't normally calling tech by their RFC numbers permalink fedilink source parent