▲ | anonymars 9 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm not familiar with this issue and a quick search didn't turn up anything obvious. Would you mind elaborating? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | Arrowmaster 9 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
They are referring to the ability of a site you are logging into forcing you to use a client from a specific list or having a list of clients to deny. It's copied over from FIDO hardware keys where each device type needed to be identifiable so higher tier ones could be required or unsecured development versions could be blocked. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | pandorobo 9 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Specifically they are referring to synced passkeys (passkeys generated by services like Google password manager/1Password/Apple and are linked to that account). Because these passkeys are stored in the Cloud and synced to your providers account (i.e. Google/Apple/1Password etc), they can't support attestation. It leads to a scenario where Relying Parties (the apps consuming the passkey), cannot react to incidents in passkey providers. For example: If tomorrow, 1Password was breached and all their cloud-stored passkeys were leaked, RP's have no way to identify and revoke the passkeys associated with that leak. Additionally, if a passkey provider turns out to be malicious, there is no way to block them. |