• xylogx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The problem he is describing here is mostly with enrollment and account recovery and not so much passkeys. The risk of getting locked out of accounts exists whether or not you use passkeys. Code based authenticators are not any better in this regard. Enrollment and recovery are the hardest part of identity. Passkeys are meant to address phishing risks specifically. I would love to see us do better on account recovery whether or not passkeys get adopted. The thing is, passkeys adoption is pretty slow and it has little to do with the issues described in this article. People just find it complicated and confusing. Until it is dead simple and the default, it will not find broad adoption.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      The core issue is identity. If people would protect a digital identity a little better than they protect a credit card, that could/should be the basis of everything. Any account “worth more” than the CC $50 liability limit should have additional layers ON TOP OF the secure identity, including front line security that must be passed before the secure identity comes into play, but that single identity could/should be an element of access control to all non-anonymous accounts.

      Anonymous accounts should stick with passwords, and online material should be clearly attributed as anonymous, or sourced from a secure identity (signed by said identity and blockchained to provide provenance).