Right, I haven't seen that particular flaw in baked-into-the-browser ones (probably because they already having secure domain matching code ready to use), but the distinction is that doing the domain check is a part of the spec and standard, so e.g: sites aren't going to break it by changing the log-in subdomain routinely, as has been common historically.

Password managers have had to be permissive enough to work with most websites, and there is no standard for it. There have been sites that blocked the autofilling of passwords and so on as well.

My point wasn't this one particular flaw in some password managers is the reason to use passkeys (the copy/paste point is the much bigger issue anyway), just that it's an example of how relatively brittle the password manager process is. Having it a core part of the spec gives stronger guarantees.

▲

cruffle_duffle 3 hours ago | parent [-]

“There have been sites that blocked the autofilling of passwords and so on as well.”

Sites that do this irritate me so much. Ones that try to block pasting and stuff… like somebody intentionally baked that into the site. Who? And what was their rationale? Are they really so arrogant to think people are going to carefully type in some elaborate password not once but twice?

That and blocking paste in fields like bank account numbers and stuff.

Surely somebody here has been asked to implement these mis-features. Please explain what went through the heads of the people responsible for it?

	▲	pnw an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Blocking bank account numbers from being pasted is considered an error prevention measure. By forcing people to enter it manually at least once, you stop them from blindly pasting the wrong number twice. There's no real regulation requiring blocking paste but it has become an annoying informal standard of sorts.