Yes, this is exactly the problem.

Multiple pieces of software vying to be your passkey provider, often using dark patterns so you don’t realize you’re making a choice, and not using the term “passkey” so people are using the technology without knowing what it is or how to research it.

Kind of reflects the state of the web today, where every company wants to be your intermediary in every interaction, from making a purchase to transcribing a meeting.

> The idea was to provide a phishing resistant authentication method for enterprise users (companies loose quite a lot of money to phishing).

Honest question: If the main issue is phishing, why wasn't something like Yubikey adopted more widely - or dongles, or the venerable chip cards we have since the 80s?

Everyone knows what a key is - I mean the thing you open doors with. Most people know the basic security implications as well as what to do if you lose one.

The simplest way to translate that to "electronic keys" would be a dongle or chip card - that lets a device use its identity as long as its plugged in, but is not physically locked to that device. A user can unplug it, take it home with them or plug it into a different device. What a user can't do is copy them, so the same phishing protections as with passkeys are provided.

But for some reason, this never caught on except for niche solutions. Instead, the industry is increasingly moving to systems where the keys are fused with the devices themselves, using TPMs or similar technologies that can't be removed from the device. Which gives you all the well-kniwn hassles if keys have to be moved or devices get lost or stolen.

But I don't understand why this is done.

I don’t see hardware tokens (like Yubikey) in the list. Those are the only ones that provide a true second factor, to protect against the theft or compromise of your primary device.

I’m a little afraid that hardware tokens are getting lost in all the passkey marketing BS. At least they continue to work for now.

There are some parts of this that are correct and other parts that are incorrect:

>1. The idea was to provide a phishing resistant authentication method for enterprise users (companies loose quite a lot of money to phishing).

This is incorrect. The idea was to provide a phishing resistant primary factor that could compete with the usability of passwords to the point that consumers would actually want to adopt it.

>2. Majority of industry players shared the vision of a credential which is available across the platforms and browsers

This is correct/accurate.

> 3. The vision for collaboration never materialized so everyone went their own way to implement it. Examples would be google rolling out browser (Chrome) managed authentication which led to this situation where even on the same machine you have to remember which browser you used to create the Passkey credential.

IIRC at least Chrome's default on Apple platforms is to save to the Passwords app by default. There are then multiple fallback options in the case that the user isn't using the default credential provider -- ultimately falling back all the way to cross-device passkey sign-in (the QR-code initiated sign in) or Security Key.

The security engineering behind the QR-code cross-device sign-in stuff is interesting: https://www.corbado.com/blog/webauthn-passkey-qr-code#4-pass...

That said, I strongly agree that fragmentation of where passkeys get saved is super confusing and I wish there:

(a) was stronger guidance from the FIDO alliance on both educating users that it's totally fine to have multiple passkeys across different ecosystems (e.g. one in Apple, one in Google), and;

(b) that all the credential managers could figure out a better way to place nice together and make it super clear to the end-user where a passkey is getting stored, what context it's for (e.g. personal vs. work), and actively help them store it in the right place (which might be different credential manager app for personal vs. work!).

> 4. Interestingly enough the earlier popular name was WebAuthn, Apple started calling it Passkey on fly, given Apple's popularity everyone just caved in.

This is incorrect -- passkeys are not just another name for WebAuthn. If you go back and look at the original definition Apple gave for the word passkey, you'll find that it was meant to be a discoverable WebAuthn credential that syncs across a user's devices with end-to-end encryption. There was a bunch of industry thrash around the definition, but it seems like the original Apple definition has largely stuck/settled now, and when passkeys don't sync they're typically called "device-bound passkeys" rather than just "passkeys".

>5. My personal interpretation is that in some sense Apple wanted to be the default password manager on Apple devices.

If you go back and watch the original passkeys announcement from Apple, their stated goal was to create something that is both a better user experience and more secure than passwords. By "better user experience", they meant the act of creating credentials and then repeatedly using those credentials (logging in).

Part of actually achieving that goal means there needs to be something that "just works automatically out of the box" which means there needs to be a built-in credential manager. That said, Apple credential manager had already existed for many many years by the time passkeys came around. The only thing that changed was instead of being solely accessible from inside System Settings (which was hard for the average user to find), the functionality moved into a standalone Passwords app.

>6. This is when all password manager companies jumped in strongly to save their business and the protocol went into a direction where you can use your existing password manager to store the credential/Passkey as well

I think it's a huge positive that all the password managers jumped on board, and that they could jump on board (since WebAuthn is an open standard). I think this is a good thing for consumer choice and for overall adoption and perception of passkeys. A lot of folks (including on this thread) have big tech lock-in conspiracy theories about passkeys, and the conspiracy theories would be even more prevalent without a wide spectrum of consumer choice for credential managers.

>If you are using it with security in mind then my recommendation would be to use a hardware backed security key with NFC enabled. Everything else is pretty much lipstick on pig, they are worse than passwords in some sense from usage perspective.

Passkeys protect against phishing attacks, and you get that protection regardless of whether the credential is hardware-bound or not. That protection comes from the cryptographic binding of the credential to the domain at the time of credential creation.

The only additional protection you get by making the passkey hardware-bound is preventing an attacker who has already compromised your operating system from stealing the credential. But! Unless you are also doing hardware binding of the session (aka cookie) after sign-in, then doing hardware binding of your credential is mostly security theater, because the attacker can just wait for you to sign in and then steal your session.

And there is standards work happening separately for hardening session security, such as DBSC: https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-dbsc/

WebAuthn is the standard for token authentication.

(I.e., Yubikeys and other USB sticks.)

It works fine and it a no-brainer to use.

The problems start when vendors start trying to shoehorn their shitty cloud auth services into WebAuthn.

It should have never been a cloud password manager play. It should be hardware device only, and tied to the device. One passkey on each hardware device.