logoalt Hacker News

cedwsyesterday at 7:53 AM4 repliesview on HN

There’s another foot gun I wrote about recently:

https://cedwards.xyz/passkeys-are-not-2fa/


Replies

dwedgeyesterday at 8:31 AM

I was reading your other blog post about storing them in bitwarden I have to disagree with this point:

> Unless you were forced to by some organisational policy, there’s no point setting up 2FA only to reduce the effective security to 1FA because of convenience features.

2FA both stored in your password manager is less secure than storing than separately, but it still offers security compared to a single factor. The attack methods you mentioned (RAT, keylogger) require your device to be compromised, and if your device is not compromised 2fa will help you.

To slip into opinion mode, I consider my password manager being compromised to be mostly total compromise anyway.

Also I really like the style and font of your blog.

show 1 reply
JasonADruryyesterday at 10:03 AM

This isn't a footgun, you just have absurd security requirements.

>It should be pretty obvious that using a passkey, which lives in the same password manager as your main sign-in password/passkey is not two factors. Setting it up like this would be pointless.

You simply do not need two factors with passkeys. Using passkeys is not pointless, they are vastly more secure than most combined password+2fa solutions.

There are extremely few contexts where an yubikey would be meaningfully safer than the secure element in your macbook.

show 2 replies
lxgryesterday at 10:07 AM

> It should be pretty obvious that using a passkey, which lives in the same password manager as your main sign-in password/passkey is not two factors. Setting it up like this would be pointless.

If your password manager is itself protected by two factors, I'd still call this two-factor authentication.

FreakLegionyesterday at 8:44 AM

Passkeys are meant to replace passwords. Not being second factors is the point.

show 2 replies