| ▲ | drhagen 5 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Can someone tell why the whole standard for authentication on the web is not just this: me: Can you show me my stuff? website: HTTP 401, who are you? I understand EasyAuth 1.0, if that is good for you. me: Sure, here's my EasyAuth 1.0: Hi <website>, I'm <user_id>. The time is <timestamp>. Signed, <digital_signature>. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 5G_activated 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You have described, at a high level, passkeys. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | drhagen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ok, I guess you also need a way to say "Oh, and next time I talk to you I'll use public key <public_key>." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ajross 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Because you or someone needs to publish "<digital_signature>" in a way that cannot be forged, stolen, MiTM'd, or otherwise compromised. Basically the key generating that signature just becomes another password, far more difficult to use in practice, and sharing all the same disadvantages. So no one implements it for site-local login. Even the biggest sites like Amazon, for example, still use old-school passwords+2FA. The way secure auth works for small sites is that a third party[1] authenticates you, who the website trusts more than mere users. And that's where all the complexity comes up. You need something secure stored on your known-secure device, a password alone won't do. [1] In practice Google or Meta. Occasionally Apple or Microsoft. Everyone else is noise. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||