▲ | __MatrixMan__ 8 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
Is this not the protocol we're talking about? https://w3c.github.io/webauthn/#sctn-attestation It seems pretty clear that "where possible" parties besides the user are provided with information about the user (ostensibly about their device, but who knows what implementers will use this channel for)... so they can make a trust decision. It's going to end up being a root-of-trust play, and those create high value targets which don't hold up against corruption, so you're going to end up with a cabal of auth-providers who use their privileged position to mistreat users (which they already do, but what'll be different is that this time around nobody will trust that you're a real human unless you belong at least one member of this cabal). | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | timmyc123 8 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Just because an API or protocol has a certain capability, does not mean it is implemented for all use cases. Folks seem to be hung up on the term "attestation" being in the response of a create call. If you look inside that object, there is another carve out for optional authenticator attestation, which is not used for consumer use cases. I will keep repeating what I've said in the other comments. There is no credential manager attestation in the consumer synced passkey ecosystem. Period. | |||||||||||||||||
|