4 ms·
Client certs would be awesome but they're not for humans. I was enrolled at the distance university of Hagen in Germany for a while and they require the use of
by pluma 10y ago
Client certs would be awesome but they're not for humans.
I was enrolled at the distance university of Hagen in Germany for a while and they require the use of client certificates for access to their online portal. There were clear instructions for how to create and use a client certificate but I suspect they have an advantage in that many of their students enrol in technical subjects or already have job experience. Compared to an ordinary website they also have the advantage that students HAVE to use the website and they're the only public distance university in Germany so there's no competition.
From a user perspective the client certificate is incredibly cumbersome. It's a file on your computer, so you have to remember where you put it and move it to new devices if you want to use it there too. It also means you're more likely to misplace or lose it though you're probably less likely to leak it compared to a password.
The instructions also largely boiled down to "use Firefox". In Germany Firefox has a huge market share and is widely deployed as the alternative browser in the public sector (although IE still exists due to contracts with intranet service providers). In other countries things look differently.
In Chrome the experience of using client certificates was even more convoluted and the university officially didn't support Chrome because apparently client certificates flat out didn't work in Chrome until fairly recently (i.e. a few years ago).
In terms of UX, creating and using password is trivial compared to creating and using client certificates. Of course this is mostly because most people do passwords wrong. Creating and using a secure non-guessable password is difficult (though services like 1password or lastpass have made it easier at the cost of adding a single point of failure) but it's still marginally easier than creating and using a client certificate.
The big difference though, is that insecure-by-default is not as big of a cost to a website or software as the bad UX of client certificates. Sadly the UX of client certificates likely won't get better in browsers unless more sites use client certificates -- so it's stuck in a Catch 22.
- averell 10y agoActually they just killed that program, and you won't be able to log via certificates starting early next year.
- pluma 10y agoDoesn't surprise me. I always wondered how much support overhead it caused. I worked at the computer pool help desk of another university for a few semesters and it really opens your eyes to how alien some concepts techies find obvious can be for normal humans.
- Programmatic 10y agoA protocol to have the site sign a certificate provided by the browser on signup/authentication would be nice. A UI to allow signing of pending certificate signing requests would allow you to authorize additional devices on demand, or revoke certificates/access for other devices. Some services allow you to do this today with device-specific passwords.
- zeeZ 10y agoThere is a HTML <keygen> tag, but it's deprecated IIRC.
- striking 10y agoIt's not really deprecated, but it's so old and cumbersome and unsupported that the MDN page says "it is better to continue to consider this feature as deprecated and going away." Chrome promises to drop it entirely in version 54, and Firefox is okay with removing it too. You're already warned in your developer console if you use the element. I would love to see a revitalized version of this element, because client side authentication by way of certificates is really cool. It's interesting in comparison to the typical username/password auth ubiquitous today.