Login
You're viewing the discuss.systems public feed.
  • Oct 12, 2026, 1:50 PM

    If you actually read the “Passkeys are a trap. Do not use them.” post going around, you’ll find a transparent attempt to clumsily string together a conspiracy.

    The post is predicated on the idea that a feature of WebAuthn called “attestation”, which is only used in high-assurance and usually corporate scenarios, and usually with physical hardware security keys, will be leveraged to hurt people, somehow.

    The post posits that a website like X will bait and switch users: first, you get a passkey. Then, later, scary “attested” passkeys! This simply isn’t possible to do because attestation isn’t supported on the web for mass market, consumer authentication.

    Attestation for passkeys (software-based, syncable credentials) is antithetical to their mass market goals, and would freeze out independent, non-corporate-backed credential managers. It’s an explicit non-goal of the designers of passkeys, who work together in a forum anyone can join.

    And trust me, websites and apps like banks repeatedly asked for attestation at the beginning of the industry’s passkey journey. The platforms, browsers, and credential management apps have held firm that the goal of passkeys is reducing phishing and **not** some kind of trusted computing scheme. (And I will note: over my dead body!)

    Besides the theory of the case being fundamentally wrong, there are several things that make the post disqualifying in terms of arguing something useful or important in the realm of security, privacy, and user authentication:

    1. Intentionally presenting things that are complicated as inherently suspicious. (Delivering security by design can be complicated, yes!)

    2. Describing TOTP as a “great solution” for adding security to a password-based account. When the most common threat model on the web is phishing (a word the post never mentions!), TOTP hardly buys you _anything_. TOTP is phishable.

    3. Seeming to be unbothered by how many logical leaps are being taken without actually understanding the topic being discussed.

    There are bad things happening in tech and untrustworthy people and companies do exist, but they’re largely in the AI space, not the “let’s stop people we love from getting compromised through phishing” space.

    💬 66🔄 556⭐ 683

Replies

  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 2:04 PM

    @rmondello I already had an eyebrow raise at the initial argument from jump, but I just closed the whole page when I saw the straight-faced TOTP is a great solution argument. 🙄 Apparently anti-passkey people don’t work in corporate security and deal with phishing day in and out.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 13
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 13, 2026, 5:11 AM

    @Netzblockierer @SecureTaco @rmondello Let's stop using people then!

    No seriously, you can't teach people not to fall for phishing. A whole industry has tried for a decade and failed. But we can build non-phishable credentials. Anyone saying otherwise either has lost contact with reality or has an agenda.

    Let's just put out a counter conspiracy theory here. There are people who benefit from phishing. There's a whole crime-as-a-service industry out there. So who would benefit from spreading FUD about passkeys? Qui bono? Exactly!

    💬 0🔄 2⭐ 7
  • Oct 12, 2026, 2:10 PM

    @rmondello thanks for the debunk! In your opinion, what bad stuff *could* happen with passkeys? In my (maybe laypersonish) view they seem like almost all upside

    💬 4🔄 1⭐ 2
  • 💬 1🔄 1⭐ 8
  • Oct 12, 2026, 7:57 PM

    @ColmDonoghue @shaundon @rmondello that is a scenario where passkey would not help, true. BUT it includes your browser profile being logged into google, which means anyone in your family is logged into your account anyway.
    (exception: you use local passkey in browser profile without sync, on both cases private profiles should work)

    in any case, shared laptop is a real nightmare security-wise, passkey or not

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 1
  • Oct 12, 2026, 9:41 PM

    @cy @shaundon @rmondello

    You misunderstood me
    There's passkeys on the laptop
    They get used by anyone knowing the unlock pin for windows, so any account can be accessed

    Before the passkeys, you had to login to gmail with a password, not known to others
    Once you have a passkey, Gmail doesn't make it obvious how to go back to password use

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 2
  • Oct 13, 2026, 5:21 AM

    @ColmDonoghue @shaundon @rmondello my point is a different one. use separate accounts on a shared laptop. if your threat scenario is your family accessing your gmail, the password won’t protect you for long either if someone really wants access.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:38 PM

    @shaundon @rmondello
    As they're currently implemented, they mostly lock you into one vendor. There is a standard for securely moving Passkeys between stores, but nobody has implemented it (and why would they, it locks you to their platform, and can be sold as a security feature).
    Some apps don't even support adding multiple passkeys… this is really bad for anyone using a hardware token, and moderately stupid for people trying to move platforms.

    💬 2🔄 3⭐ 23
  • Oct 12, 2026, 5:08 PM

    @libewa @shaundon @rmondello

    Some apps don't even support adding multiple passkeys… this is really bad for anyone using a hardware token, and moderately stupid for people trying to move platforms.

    That's an issue with the app provider, not the standard. I put this in the same box as websites that put weird password complexity requirements.

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 6:20 PM

    @Eldeberen @libewa @rmondello @shaundon

    That's an issue with the app provider, not the standard.

    If I may make a counter argument: a widely embraced pattern for managing the standard is just as relevant to the standard as the standard itself.

    For example - Android is technically an open standard, but in reality, what Google says goes because stores sell Google phones, and most app makers use Google's SDKs.

    It's also relevant that the standard itself encourages lockin by design by having the escape for lockin as a select feature set that can be left out instead of a critical part of how the system itself works. This is, in itself, a flaw in the standard.

    💬 2🔄 1⭐ 8
  • Oct 12, 2026, 6:51 PM

    @Epic_Null @Eldeberen @libewa @rmondello @shaundon In fact, the standard goes out of its way to make registering additional credentials easy and says that relying parties SHOULD encourage(!) users to register multiple credentials. w3.org/TR/webauthn-2/#sctn-cre

    I see no widely embraced pattern of getting this wrong. Even the implementations that allowed only one TOTP device I've seen which now support multiple credentials.
    (Worst case I've seen is Bitwarden which has an arbitrary limit of 5.)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 5
  • Oct 12, 2026, 7:12 PM

    @henryk @Eldeberen @libewa @rmondello @shaundon I will admit to having limited ancidotal evidence either way due to being one of those people who avoids passkeys.

    IMO it turns up the impact of threats like "Device Failure" "and introduces risk for anyone who needs to borrow a device, and increases the risk of forgetting passwords. I don't consider the "Harder to phish" tradeoff worth it.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 2
  • Oct 12, 2026, 8:14 PM
    @Epic_Null An counter argument to that is the fact that both Microsoft and Google, which are usually the first to badly implement standards, do it the right way. TBH I've never seen any website that allows only one passkey. Sure they exist, but I will not count them as a "widely embraced pattern".

    @libewa @rmondello @shaundon
    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 13, 2026, 9:18 AM
    @libewa@chaos.social @shaundon@mstdn.social @rmondello@hachyderm.io why would ever have to move a passkey? Just make a new one?

    I have separate passkeys on my phone and my laptop, this is no problem at all - actually possibly even better so if the phone or laptop is in an uncertain state, I can just revoke the passkeys that I made for only that device just in case.

    And I have yet to see a single website out of the 29 I have passkeys on (according to the count in my phone's passkey management) that didn't let me enroll multiple.

    But I can kind of see how this will scale badly if you have more passkeys than that and change devices often .
    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 1⭐ 8
  • Oct 12, 2026, 5:50 PM

    @bob_zim @shaundon @rmondello unsurprisingly, sites have been implementing authentication shockingly poorly since the dawn of the web. La plus ça change...

    One thing I wished was more prominent was the idea that passkeys are cattle, not pets. Lose access to one? Who cares! Recover the account or use a different one.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 9:49 PM

    @growse @bob_zim @shaundon @rmondello as a passkey noob. If my account is accessed by one, how do I recover it? In a coorporate scenario call the admin, but my gmail account per se? (Seriously, haven't looked in to passkeys yet, it there a master key ala ssl cert that can make me a new one?)

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Oct 12, 2026, 10:08 PM

    @Fooker @growse Ideally, sites *should* let you register multiple passkeys and hardware keys. Then if you lose one, you go get a second device you’ve already enrolled, and use it to revoke the lost one and add a new replacement. Not all sites actually *do* work this way, though.

    If you lose all of the keys associated with an account (e.g, house burns down, and you have no fire safe), you go through the account recovery flow. Google account recovery is pretty opaque, and they provide zero support. Given the stakes for losing access, I would do a lot of research before using a passkey for a Google account.

    On the other hand, banks have annoying recovery processes, but extremely well understood ones. I use passkeys for as many of those as I can.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 6:48 PM

    @shaundon @rmondello For me, the biggest issue is that most implementations store a copy of the private key somewhere I don't control in a form where someone else has access to it. Eg., when I accidentally created a passkey for Amazon, to fully delete it I had to go to Google Password Manager (I was not using Chrome).

    My preferred method of passkey is a hardware token.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 4
  • Brandonbrandonscript@appdot.net
    Oct 12, 2026, 2:19 PM

    @rmondello oh lol I read it and had the exact same response. Yeah. I mean it could be abused, but like... just don't use that service?

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:17 PM

    @brandonscript because services being actually/de-facto/almost mandatory to use is something that never happens in the modern world?
    We already see this mess with device attestion on mobile apps. "Just don't use that service" is not a good argument.

    💬 1🔄 2⭐ 19
  • Brandonbrandonscript@appdot.net
    Oct 12, 2026, 4:29 PM

    @HeNeArXn idk I was an avid Twitter user for a decade and after it went the way of the Nazi, it wasn't something I wanted to use anymore. Same principle applies 🤷‍♂️

    If health providers or governments, or your employer want you to use a specific trusted auth app, well, I can understand why they would want to enforce that.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 3
  • Oct 12, 2026, 2:21 PM

    @rmondello I mostly agree with your post, especially short-term. However, even using just the AAGUID I have seen sites refusing to accept passkeys from 1Password and only accepting browser built-in passkeys out of security theatre.

    If in the long-term that or indeed attestation takes hold and in the very long term, password authentication is dropped as a thing sites accept, then we will be in a position where minorities will be cut off from access to websites with attestation being un-fakeable.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 26
  • 💬 2🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 4:37 PM

    @mehdi_benadel @rmondello If there’s nobody in your life that you love and you’ve talked to and thought “oh, my god, this is awful, how can I save them from password hell?” Then you might not understand this sentiment. I understand this sentiment.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 2
  • Oct 12, 2026, 4:45 PM

    @chazh
    Not saying that.
    First, that was sarcastic.
    Second, some people don't have any sympathy to share with the rest of us.
    We know immigration policies and genocide are a thing. As if that didn't have any direct or indirect impact on "loved ones".
    @rmondello

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 2
  • Oct 12, 2026, 4:41 PM

    @mehdi_benadel I happen to love a lot of people in this world. Wasn’t trying to limit who is positively affected by the work of improving account security.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 3
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Oct 12, 2026, 2:40 PM

    @rmondello I hope Mastodon supports passkeys here. I know there is already an open issue about it, but I have hope one day I will see that issue being closed as resolved. :Brookehappy:

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 2
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 2:57 PM

    @rmondello
    I couldn't get past the bit where they kept weirdly naming features and misunderstanding underlying technical details.

    I was too tired last night to write up an uhhhhh.... response to that so I'm glad I woke up to your take

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 5
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:03 PM

    @rmondello That post wasn’t very good yeah. Have you seen this research article that popped up when I searched for that post tho: news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/
    I’ve only skimmed the paper, but the gist of their argument seems to be no one understands how passkeys work, which is sort of true (compared to passwords at least). To understand passkeys you need to understand cryptography which is a losing battle.

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 9
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:15 PM

    @venkatasg And yet, tons and tons of people are successfully using passkeys every day, with the highest sign in success rates of any authentication mechanism, for many websites. People don’t need to fully understand something for them to participate in it. Passwords are a good example, because people think they understand passwords and they really, really don’t.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 9
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:47 PM

    @rmondello @venkatasg what kind of metric is this?

    Tons of people are successfully using door keys every day, with the highest unlock success rates of any unlocking method, for many doors. Typically their other keys don't fit in.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 4:55 PM

    @lnl @rmondello @venkatasg Especially bad metric because it completely misses all the people who can't register in the first place.

    My partner's HSA tried to switch everyone to passkeys, blocking passwords entirely. She was locked out because none of the several options she tried allowed her to register!

    The company gave up a couple months later and went back to allowing passwords.

    Yeah, you can say "oh, that's one broken implementation/policy" but this is only one of many stories I've heard of people having bad experiences with passkeys (including bad experiences with people *pushing* passkeys).

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 6
  • peachfrontpeachfront@mas.to
    Oct 12, 2026, 3:15 PM

    @venkatasg @rmondello

    well i don't understand how passkeys work, so when a service pops up saying it will use biometric identifiers like my face & i already know i have been misidentified several times as someone else by facial recognition all i know is that it sounds extremely insecure to me

    if passkeys don't defend against family members using them (as that cornell link suggests) they don't defend against financial theft and abuse by family members, they are only lawsuit protection for financial institutions which already refuse to make customers whole when a family member robs them

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 6
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:11 PM

    @rmondello thank you for the debunk, I had three people send me that in the last sixteen hours asking for my opinion

    It’s also curious how its by a seemingly anonymous author on a new blog with zero other posts

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 3
  • Oct 12, 2026, 7:50 PM

    @mattly @rmondello If I were a government agency keeping tabs on the kind of paranoid persons that piece is written to appeal to, and I was afraid that passkeys might make this harder, that is exactly the kind of thing I'd publish.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:11 PM

    @rmondello “There are bad things happening in tech and untrustworthy people and companies do exist, but they’re largely in the AI space, not the “let’s stop people we love from getting compromised through phishing” space.”

    This is where you lose me. It’s naive to think the untrustworthy people and companies are “largely in the AI space”. “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” predates AI. I get that you and the people you work with feel that you’re on the right side of this issue, and I get that you have a strong working knowledge of it, but you are all cogs in a machine that will continue past your contributions. That machine is designed to provide returns to shareholders. Not to safeguard grandmas, not to protect people from online IDs, and especially not to prevent strings from being pulled to tighten restrictions on consumers in order to extract more money.

    💬 2🔄 4⭐ 21
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:17 PM

    @shadows If that’s where I lost you, I think I did a pretty good job. I agree with everything you’ve said, especially about how no one can guarantee continuity of care in an organization because people come and go. But damn, we’ve got to try, and the fact that things *can* change in the future doesn’t mean they’re *likely to*.

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 15
  • 💬 0🔄 2⭐ 8
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:16 PM

    @rmondello Passkeys per-se aren't the problem. The problem is broken implementations that are user-hostile - and the spec allows such broken implementations. Want to be able to authenticate with more than one device and need more than one passkey? Ebay's implementation says no. Want to be able to use your phone as well as your desktop computer? Lloyds Bank's current implementation says no (Windows desktop only). And good luck on stolen/lost/devices. account recovery is up to the implementation.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 17
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:19 PM

    @zymurgic I want to point out that you’re now just grinding the axe you have and aren’t talking about the post I’m responding to or my response.

    I didn’t know that about eBay’s passkey implementation. I’ll talk to folks over there that I know. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

    (And as for that bank — that’s so bizarre. I’m sorry you’re experiencing that.)

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 2
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 4
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Oct 12, 2026, 6:19 PM

    @rmondello @mal3aby They're starting their rollout with business customers: lloydsbank.com/business/help-a "We’ll roll out passkeys over the next few months, starting with Windows.".

    If they're hard-coding a Windows reliance now, you can bet that they're forcing some lack-of-choice of how the user wants to manage their passkeys, so expect a third-party attestation requirement and hardware-only support. If you're lucky, the Windows-only restriction is a soft-launch customer support training issue.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 3
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 11:29 PM

    @rmondello @zymurgic lol, my bank does not allow Android developer mode. I have to use a second device just for my bank since my phone is always on dev mode enabled. Like, can't android developer have bank accounts? Banking security is often so dumb!

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:20 PM

    @rmondello@hachyderm.io i did see that and didn’t take it as an emergency, so didn’t boost it

    i’d think too that if phishing is the main concern, failing passkeys, a password manager would be a good step to take. any that verify the domain would give you a big red flag when you’re on the wrong domain

    im mostly of the thought that passkeys create more problems than they solve in their current form (a lost device means recovery becomes harder), but maybe this will get better

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 5:43 PM

    @amy @rmondello Password manager doesn't help because they all work by letting you copy the password out and put it somewhere else.

    You can't readily do that with a passkey unless it lets you extract the private key. So like someone tried to with my Trezor by claiming they'd verify the randomness of my recovery seed. But see, I'd have to go dig that out of a safe or out of the ground or something if I were dumb enough to do it and was using the thing.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 12, 2026, 3:22 PM

    @rmondello the OP's article is a bit clumsy. I think it does have a point though: if passkeys follow a spec - webauthn/FIDO2 - which allows for and warmly accommodates "attestation" to be weaponized against platforms like #Linux and#LineageOS, excluding them, then why wholeheartedly adopt and advocate passkeys? Because to do so would condone, and open the door to such weaponization against Linux/LineageOS/etc (since attestation is a foregone conclusion, once it gets pushed for hard by the tech giants, banks, govt's, etc who will surely cave to piles of money being readily available for lobbying for the mandatory use of said attestation)

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 14