5 ms·

>Third, how is it not adoption when Facebook, Github, Dropbox, Google and many others have added it. adding != users are using it (they don't) 19 is price for

>Third, how is it not adoption when Facebook, Github, Dropbox, Google and many others have added it. adding != users are using it (they don't) 19 is price for yubikey, maybe some do for 5, it doesn't matter because it should be 0 and no hardware costs that. Making auth layer for general public as hardware is a mistake #1. >When is the last time authentication technology has been adopted like that? I would think never. Facebook Connect. Hell of a success. It's centralized, though (and we made decentralized securelogin.pw) Google says some of their 50k employers are happy with experience. That's it, has nothing to do with users of Google.

nickik 9y ago
> adding != users are using it (they don't) I use it. My company uses it for Google GSuite (mandatory). I know many people who use it. Also, this is pretty new stuff, of course its not used by everybody yet. The Spec has not been finalized for very long. U2F has actually shown very good growth. It has been adopted in some mainstream browsers and Firefox will have it soon as well. Adding a completely new authentication layer to the hole web is a monster task. No solution will solve all problems in a couple years only. > 19 is price for yubikey, maybe some do for 5, it doesn't matter because it should be 0 and no hardware costs that. Making auth layer for general public as hardware is a mistake #1. Again, much future hardware will just have it built in. You have a smartphone anyway, why not use it as a second factor? Your wearable could be your U2F device. That's also U2F. U2F is a protocol, not a hardware stick. Also, you don't need hardware. You can use software implementations if the server allows that. > Facebook Connect. That's federation layer and you can use U2F to make it saver for you.
- homakov 9y ago
  I'd rather recommend people use google auth/facebook connect than go through u2f hassle. It's way too inconvenient and will never go mainstream. Did they figure out usable backups yet? Or they still recommend to just buy another stick?
  - striking 9y ago
    Your backups are the generated Authenticator backup codes. Most services give you anywhere between 5 and 10 of these, giving you 5 to 10 chances to log in without your stick. That's plenty of leeway. No reason not to just revoke the old factor and buy a new one.
    - scott00 9y ago
      The problem with this is the backup codes are different for each service. With one service, I can keep a backup card in my wallet, another in my house, and another at somebody else's house in a different city, giving me very high assurance of availability in the event of token loss or destruction. I can't maintain that level of backup for every service I sign up for. Even multiple tokens isn't a good solution for lots of services, since you need possession of the token to enroll.
  - nickik 9y ago
    Its a point-to-point protocol. Its not a login and recovery flow. Its designed to be integrated in what people are already using as a direct replacement for other 2 factors, so it can be widely adopted instead of forcing everybody to something completely new. Once this is established the hope to push the envelope further with future versions. That's the reason this stuff gets adopted. Everybody understand that these issues still exist. Nobody believes that FIDO 1.0 is the solution for all problems that exist in auth. I for one much rather buy two U2F sticks, then entering that stupid TOTP token one more time.
    - homakov 9y ago
      "Factor" is a marketing word. There is security threat model, and there are no "factors". u2f introduces another layer instead of fixing first one. That's why they failed - all we needed is a password replacement, not code generator on top of that.
      - nickik 9y ago
        Ok. So lets explain this ELI5-style. Currently people use passwords then add TOTP to increase security. FIDO wants to improve the situation so they introduce UAF to replace passwords, and they replace U2F to replace TOPT. What exactly is your problem? They did exactly what you wanted, they invented UAF to improve on the first factor. For high security application you can add a second factor. Are you arguing there is never a case for a second factor? I really don't understand your issues.

nickik 9y ago

> adding != users are using it (they don't) I use it. My company uses it for Google GSuite (mandatory). I know many people who use it. Also, this is pretty new stuff, of course its not used by everybody yet. The Spec has not been finalized for very long. U2F has actually shown very good growth. It has been adopted in some mainstream browsers and Firefox will have it soon as well. Adding a completely new authentication layer to the hole web is a monster task. No solution will solve all problems in a couple years only. > 19 is price for yubikey, maybe some do for 5, it doesn't matter because it should be 0 and no hardware costs that. Making auth layer for general public as hardware is a mistake #1. Again, much future hardware will just have it built in. You have a smartphone anyway, why not use it as a second factor? Your wearable could be your U2F device. That's also U2F. U2F is a protocol, not a hardware stick. Also, you don't need hardware. You can use software implementations if the server allows that. > Facebook Connect. That's federation layer and you can use U2F to make it saver for you.

homakov 9y ago
I'd rather recommend people use google auth/facebook connect than go through u2f hassle. It's way too inconvenient and will never go mainstream. Did they figure out usable backups yet? Or they still recommend to just buy another stick?
- striking 9y ago
  Your backups are the generated Authenticator backup codes. Most services give you anywhere between 5 and 10 of these, giving you 5 to 10 chances to log in without your stick. That's plenty of leeway. No reason not to just revoke the old factor and buy a new one.
  - scott00 9y ago
    The problem with this is the backup codes are different for each service. With one service, I can keep a backup card in my wallet, another in my house, and another at somebody else's house in a different city, giving me very high assurance of availability in the event of token loss or destruction. I can't maintain that level of backup for every service I sign up for. Even multiple tokens isn't a good solution for lots of services, since you need possession of the token to enroll.
- nickik 9y ago
  Its a point-to-point protocol. Its not a login and recovery flow. Its designed to be integrated in what people are already using as a direct replacement for other 2 factors, so it can be widely adopted instead of forcing everybody to something completely new. Once this is established the hope to push the envelope further with future versions. That's the reason this stuff gets adopted. Everybody understand that these issues still exist. Nobody believes that FIDO 1.0 is the solution for all problems that exist in auth. I for one much rather buy two U2F sticks, then entering that stupid TOTP token one more time.
  - homakov 9y ago
    "Factor" is a marketing word. There is security threat model, and there are no "factors". u2f introduces another layer instead of fixing first one. That's why they failed - all we needed is a password replacement, not code generator on top of that.
    - nickik 9y ago
      Ok. So lets explain this ELI5-style. Currently people use passwords then add TOTP to increase security. FIDO wants to improve the situation so they introduce UAF to replace passwords, and they replace U2F to replace TOPT. What exactly is your problem? They did exactly what you wanted, they invented UAF to improve on the first factor. For high security application you can add a second factor. Are you arguing there is never a case for a second factor? I really don't understand your issues.