10 ms·

Krypton: phone-based U2F Authenticator

153 points by cyanflux 8y ago

phren0logy 8y ago
I have been experimenting with this since I saw it here on HN a while ago. So far, I'm impressed.
orclev 8y ago
I've been using it for about a year now. Works very well. Only gotcha is that it doesn't really have support for Windows (it's on the issue tracker, but progress has been slow). If you do your work on OS X or Linux you're fine, but if you're a Windows user you're in for a bumpy ride.
- mikekij 8y ago
  Side thought- what an interesting change from the software world 10 years ago. Who would have thought windows support was a lower priority then OS X and Linux. Onward and upward!
  - orclev 8y ago
    In this particular case it's all about Windows not having a decent SSH client. There's PuTTY... and uh... PuTTY. Oh, and you can sort of maybe run OpenSSH through LSFW or Cygwin, or maybe msys, but those all have some serious gotchas associated with them. Basically it boils down to, there's no standard Windows SSH client, and the ones that are available all have a laundry list of gotchas and problems, and that's without even bringing in the various git clients into consideration. OS X and Linux are low hanging fruit, they both come out of the box with a standard and well supported SSH clients.
    - sbradford26 8y ago
      So windows 10 has added openssh. I am not sure if it has left beta but it definitely is a step in the right direction. https://www.howtogeek.com/336775/how-to-enable-and-use-windows-10s-built-in-ssh-commands/ https://www.howtogeek.com/336775/how-to-enable-and-use-windo...
jiveturkey 8y ago
but does it work for browsing on the phone itself? if so, slam dunk. even without that, it is what U2F was always destined to become. it's especially better than u2fzero. ;)
- ecesena 8y ago
  > it's especially better than u2fzero. ;) genuinely curious: why? (disclaimer: I'm working on Solo, the successor of u2fzero)
  - jiveturkey 8y ago
    look at my numerous comments in the 2 HN threads on solo/u2fzero.
    - ecesena 8y ago
      Yes, I'm aware of the general comments, I was trying to get to the core/specifics. For example, you mentioned multiple times that hardware breaks, can be stolen, the interfaces aren't standard. But all these things are actually true also for your phone: it breaks, it can be stolen (probably much easier than your keys), and chrome extension+push notification I wouldn't really call it more standard than USB. Again, I'm not trying to downplay Krypton, I like the phone solution a lot, I think it's much more usable than security keys. I use push notifications all the times e.g. via DUO. But I still think we need physical security keys against online attacks, for example as a mechanism to secure your phone itself.
- phillipseamore 8y ago
  Latest release notes for iOS app: Add support for logging into Google with Krypton locally on iOS (Google Advanced Protection program)
- agrinman 8y ago
  It does for Google logins, see the blog post here: https://krypt.co/blog/posts/use-google-advanced-protection-with-krypton.html https://krypt.co/blog/posts/use-google-advanced-protection-w... Hopefully other sites support iOS based callbacks soon.
jrockway 8y ago
What is the business model here? They release what they purport to be their source code on Github, but under a license that prohibits ... everything (literally the words "All Rights Reserved"). So clearly they want to sell that, and then have the open source community debug it for them for free, which I just don't see happening. With no way to validate that the source code on Github is what ends up in their compiled binaries, I don't see the value to anyone.
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  https://github.com/kryptco/krypton-android/blob/e5e1399caea422f36698f503c2d032b6be2c074d/LICENSE https://github.com/kryptco/krypton-android/blob/e5e1399caea4... You weren't kidding. :(
  - CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
    Their CONTRIBUTING file does say "We are currently researching what type of license makes the most sense for Kryptonite." On the other hand, that file was last updated on `master` in January 2017.
  - thrillgore 8y ago
    Someone paid attention to what Redislabs did, and wanted to get ahead of it. In the most ass way possible.
    - ramses0 8y ago
      Open Source != Free Software. "Free as in beer, not as in speech." You're welcome to pick your own license / source availability terms for your own work.
    - type0 8y ago
      Both are source available software [0], other than that you can't compare them. Krypton is fully proprietary nothing more nothing less, what RedisLabs did was a complete disservice to the whole open source phenomena without addressing any actual business concerns. They misinterpreted the whole clause thing to somehow say that your software can be both open and closed at the same time (it can't). They could at least had maybe done a minimal research and maybe learned somethings from Suns community source SCSL [1] or other similar liceses from the past and they even didn't bother doing that (the irony that SCSL is now hosted at Oracle speaks for itself). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software [1] https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/scsl-1-1-149938.txt https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/scsl-1-1-149938.txt
ademup 8y ago
Has this been audited? It sure seems like a wonderful/convenient alternative to hardware keys, but something makes me nervous about the phone aspect. I'd love to read more comments here from those more knowledgeable than I.
- ecesena 8y ago
  It doesn't seem this can really be FIDO, because FIDO only defines usb, nfc, and ble security keys. I'm not saying Krypton is bad, just that you're installing an extension that (I imagine) interacts with a server to send a push to your phone. It's a very different security model than keys, that require no extension and don't interact with any 3rd party. Update: I'm seeing that my comment is read as negative, and I don't want to give this impression. I think Krypton is great, I use 2FA over push notifications all the times myself. I was just trying to reply to the "has it been audited?" question. Edit: changed chrome extension -> extension according to comment below.
  - jiveturkey 8y ago
    It certainly can be FIDO. USB can be virtualized. As far as the authenticating entity is concerned, it is transported over USB.
  - orclev 8y ago
    You're wrong about the interaction model. When you install the client on your phone and pair it with a computer (via QR code) it generates a ssh key. You then need to import the public key into your github (or gitlab etc.) account same as you normally would. Once that's done on the client side there's a SSH plugin that is registered that intercepts the authentication request and pings the krypton server to sign your commit with the private key on your phone (the server relays the signing request to your phone via push notification). Assuming you approve everything on your phone the result is unwound back to your ssh client which finishes the handshake with the server and authorizes you based on the public key you had previously uploaded.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    FWIW, its not Chrome-only, which your post might imply. From the FAQ: "The Krypton browser extension currently only works on Google Chrome and Firefox. Safari, and Edge are coming soon." Also, it supports U2F. From the FAQ: "Krypton supports any site that supports U2F security keys." U2F is one of the two protocols supported by the FIDO standard (the other one is UAF). This doesn't say anything about whether this uses FIDO (v1) or FIDO2 though. I think this is pretty cool from a user friendly PoV. Google Android has something similar. The Facebook app doesn't AFAIK (I quit Facebook so cannot verify), but Battle.net does and so does Microsoft Authenticator. The disadvantage is that you need all these separate apps. I'd rather use just one.
CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
Ah yes, I remember seeing this before! This is interesting, because at work pretty much all of our logins (including for third-party services) go through SAML, where our IdPs use Duo for two-step. That gives us similar functionality to this, without needing to use a browser plugin. You do need to use an app, though, to avoid insecure SMS or voice. (Duo does support U2F, but it's not as obvious, because end users have to initiate the setup, and Duo instances that existed before U2F became available have it turned off—instance-wide—by default.) One thing you could do, assuming work uses Duo and U2F support is on: You could have a singly Krypton install for both personal and work (particularly if you have one mobile device). Then, enroll Krypton as your U2F device in Duo. I'm kindof surprised that either Duo or LastPass haven't bought out krypt.co yet…
- judge2020 8y ago
  > I'm kindof surprised that either Duo or LastPass haven't bought out krypt.co yet… Would be the perfect move for LastPass - around the beginning of this year Lastpass started a beta program for LastPass connect [0], however, was suddenly put on hold [1][2], and I think krypt's technology would be the perfect candidate to pull together the app. I also trust LogMeIn much more than I trust Krypt to not push out malicious binaries, so there's a plus for that. 0: https://www.lp-labs.com/ https://www.lp-labs.com/ 1: https://judge.sh/VBRJP4n.png https://judge.sh/VBRJP4n.png 2: https://www.androidauthority.com/lastpass-connect-861342/ https://www.androidauthority.com/lastpass-connect-861342/
amingilani 8y ago
This is going to change everything for me. You sirs, have cracked the hard problem: how do we make U2F easy enough for users to use without taking away the "something you have" aspect of it. This is brilliant. I love it! Now please fix the licensing, make the core open-source, be a bit more transparent, and get audited. It would really inspire a lot more confidence in a tool whose target audience is currently the security paranoid crowd.
- danieldk 8y ago
  I thought they already open source various parts, including the command-line client, iOS and Android applications? https://github.com/kryptco https://github.com/kryptco Edit: I didn't realize that they publish the source code, but with a non-FLOSS license.
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  > You sirs, have cracked the hard problem That's completely unfair. U2F was from the start designed to be rendered in this kind of form factor. "All" Krypton (and Duo, BTW) did was implement this obvious form factor. U2F itself, was the hard problem. And anyway, push 2FA has been around for approx. as long as U2F. It may not be obvious now, but U2F will ultimately die in favor of push. IMHO. (they each have strengths and weaknesses but overall push is better.)
  - mtgx 8y ago
    Push = some company owns your 2FA credential, right? Or were you talking about something else?
    - mplewis 8y ago
      I think push means when you sign in, the server pushes a notification to your phone(s), which can accept or reject the request.
      - ztjio 8y ago
jonafato 8y ago
Can anyone comment on their "zero touch is safe" claim (https://krypt.co/faq/ https://krypt.co/faq/)? As far as I understand, tokens like YubiKeys require a touch as an explicit action by the user to prevent authentication without their knowledge. Doesn't a zero touch approach remove a security feature?
- henryfjordan 8y ago
  It depends on your threat model. You pair your phone and browser and then they can talk. Any time you want to log in through that browser it can talk to your phone and auth you automatically. For someone to exploit this, they'd need access to the computer with your browser. So if your laptop gets stolen, yes this is a bad idea, but I think most people think that they can just revoke the browser's keys if if the laptop gets stolen and they are way more likely to have their phone stolen anyway.
  - jonafato 8y ago
    I was more thinking of malware / some otherwise rogue process. This seems like something that's worth having in the world of fake support remote desktop scams.
    - ReverseCold 8y ago
      That's so easy to bypass. 1. Wait for user to sign in. 2. Intercept their sign in. 3. User: "Oh, it didn't work. I'll just try again." 4. User tries again and it works. Attacker is also logged in now. Alternatively, at that point you could just inject JS into whatever website needed 2FA and do everything without the user noticing anything.
  - ztjio 8y ago
    It wouldn't matter if they had their laptop stolen unless they also had their phone stolen. The keys are on the phone. Any new auth attempt would require the phone in proximity of the laptop. It connects via Bluetooth, not over the internet.
- 8y ago
aespinoza 8y ago
So what is the difference between Krypton and Duo? Why are they so innovative? By reading the website it seems they are doing the same thing as Duo.
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  they are hugely different. Duo is a full SSO and 2FA solution. Krypton supplies a few pieces at the edge.
  - aespinoza 8y ago
    Interesting. I will check it out further. Thank you.
nikolay 8y ago
What happens when you upgrade or, God forbid, lose your phone? Do I need to redo everything from scratch like I have to do with my Krypton PGP and SSH keys? That's a no go for me. I'm pretty happy with 1Password already!
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  > Do I need to redo everything from scratch I would hope so. Anything less is not secure. (This is one of the basic "problems" with hardware authentication.) However, the software model allows for pre-arranged cloud sync between multiple devices. Given how Krypton handles PGP/SSH this support isn't there, but there's no technical obstacle.
  - mtgx 8y ago
    Is there no way to provide some paper backup for U2F at least?
    - 0xCMP 8y ago
      Best bet is the service providing those kinds of codes for recovery. Twitter, Google, etc. provide them when you sign up for OTP and U2F.
      - nikolay 8y ago
        So, all this fancy security boils down to a notepad again. I am an early adopter of Krypton and I've been sorry so many times that I'm using it for SSH and PGP.
        0xCMP 8y ago
        I use for SSH, but yea I agree it could be better. I just got a Yubikey which I plan to replace Krypton daily and have it as a backup
    - jiveturkey 8y ago
noja 8y ago
From the FAQ: What if I lose my phone? Many websites require a backup two-factor authentication methods such as SMS and TOTP (authenticator 6 digit-code apps) even if you are using a U2F security key such as Krypton. For certain sites that allow U2F only (such as Google Advanced Protection), we recommend having a backup phone with separate Krypton U2F key setup or a physical hardware key that you store securely in somewhere. We are actively building a robust account recovery service with partners to solve this problem and make U2F/WebAuthn a viable "single-factor" login system. We hope this will remove the need for these backup methods that make your account vulnerable to phishing attacks. We also see this as a major barrier to wide adoption of U2F/WebAuth/2FA so we are eager to solve this problem.
jmuguy 8y ago
I've been using Krypton for SSH for a while (basically the private key is on the phone and you approve logins using the app, they must have just added U2F recently). Its worked really well and is super simple to setup when logging into a new server.
- dijit 8y ago
  It's also really nice for signing git commits. I like it a lot. (although I can't access the <teams> section of the app on an iPhone 5SE)
lvh 8y ago
We haven't audited this personally but I'm lsoking forward to doing so. This looks awesome -- my only problem is that it doesn't solve U2F/WebAuthn on the phone itself, which is still a lot more complicated on iOS than it is on Android (even though overall, I think iOS is a better platform than Android, at least from a security perspective).
- agrinman 8y ago
  On Android it works for any site that uses the standard U2F polyfill and allows the chrome/android user-agent. You can try it on your android phone at https://u2f.bin.coffee https://u2f.bin.coffee. On iOS it works for Google logins, see the blog post here: https://krypt.co/blog/posts/use-google-advanced-protection-with-krypton.html https://krypt.co/blog/posts/use-google-advanced-protection-w....
dabeeeenster 8y ago
Can someone explain how this works!? I have looked all over the Krypt website but I still don't get it?!
- dabeeeenster 8y ago
  OK finally found it in the FAQ for those that are slow like me: Is "zero touch" secure? How is it a second factor if it approves automatically? Yes, zero touch is safe. The security behind Krypton is established when you pair Krypton with your browser (via the extension) by scanning the QR code. This ensures that only your specific browser will be able to talk to Krypton. Krypton and your browser establish a secure cryptographic channel using keys that only your phone and computer have. There is NO trusted third-party. Two-factor is simply a way to defend against compromised passwords. If someone knows your password and attempts to login then they'll be hit with a second-factor challenge. Since this attacker is remote and doesn't have access to your browser they won't be able to talk to Krypton.
  - lostmsu 8y ago
    If they steal password from your browser by, say, installing keylogger, that same keylogger can now also steal the computer side Krypton key. So zero touch does not help against that class of attacks, while normal U2F would.
amckinlay 8y ago
Should not be too hard to develop a free version of this. Do not look at their source code on GitHub, though.
maherbeg 8y ago
How does the browser communicate with the phone? Does it require an intermediary server that krypt.co runs?
- dijit 8y ago
  Yeah, it's using Amazon SQS. It's listed in their docs.
  - maherbeg 8y ago
    Ah, yeah I see it now. It wasn't listed in the FAQ which would be useful. That's a slight bummer because now there's another service dependency in your authentication flow. It's probably pretty rare that SQS will go down, but still is a bummer.
  - jiveturkey 8y ago
    oy. I'd assumed there was a browser-side USB->BLE plugin. This is horrible. Now the security of it is tied to the security of the stuff they have running in Amazon. Which they probably don't publish source code for? Even if they do, you have no way to know that is what is actually running. Not the mention reliability and availability concerns. ah well, I had such high hopes.
    - jiveturkey 8y ago
      After investigation, I have to retract my complaint. The browser-side agent is paired with your phone, Apple style. It's not a Google-style arrangement where you pair with Google and Google pairs with you, ie Google is in the middle. So as long as the source code for both parts (browser-side and phone-side) is there, and you can audit that the code viewable is the code installed, this is pretty solid. Of course the reliability and availability issue is still there.
oedmarap 8y ago
Just one gripe: I absolutely do not think it's a good idea to have zero-touch ON by default. I understand their argument about security vs. usability for laypeople as it's an age old one, but I think that applies better to situations where there's a marked tradeoff in principle. Tapping just once or reaching for one's phone doesn't detract from usability. Quite the contrary, it's a common sense approach (and teaches common sense security posture) to give one's explicit agreement for authentication, U2F or otherwise. Otherwise, the intended user base that zero-touch seems to target may end up being the same folks that question why it didn't work out of the box to protect their logins when their laptop gets physically compromised; since they assumed they didn't have to "understand or care about the differences between two-factor, U2F, or web authentication" in the first place, to quote the FAQ.
hasa 8y ago
I don't see much sense using U2F. If you just need a 2nd factor, then TOTP based solutions do it cheaper and easier. FIDO 2.0 is the way to go if FIDO is required.
- moviuro 8y ago
  TOTP requires: 1. sharing a secret (which is bad, and possibly already compromised by the time it reaches your device (phone)) 2. permanent attention to the domain. Remember similarities between the cyrillic a and latin a? (phishing, etc.)
shara_dun 8y ago
I just discover a lot of people are in debts and also under credit issues crisis, I was also among them before i met this great guy that change my life for good. I have about 5 accounts and i have debts in all. I also have 2 chase credit cards and 1 Amex that are maxed out already. My credit score is about 520 as at then. He helped me clear the debts on my 5 accounts within a week, He also got the debts on the credit cards done within a week as well. He helped me increase my credit score 850 excellent within 72 hours. All my accounts are free from debts and i can now use my credit cards peacefully as well. All thanks to the computer guru. You are worth publicizing for. (NASH89440 @ G MAIL. COM or +1(309)884-0215.
shara_dun 8y ago
I just discover a lot of people are in debts and also under credit issues crisis, I was also among them before i met this great guy that change my life for good. I have about 5 accounts and i have debts in all. I also have 2 chase credit cards and 1 Amex that are maxed out already. My credit score is about 520 as at then. He helped me clear the debts on my 5 accounts within a week, He also got the debts on the credit cards done within a week as well. He helped me increase my credit score 850 excellent within 72 hours. All my accounts are free from debts and i can now use my credit cards peacefully as well. All thanks to the computer guru. You are worth publicizing for. (NASH89440 @ G MAIL. COM or +1(309)884-0215.

153 points by cyanflux 8y ago

I have been experimenting with this since I saw it here on HN a while ago. So far, I'm impressed.

I've been using it for about a year now. Works very well. Only gotcha is that it doesn't really have support for Windows (it's on the issue tracker, but progress has been slow). If you do your work on OS X or Linux you're fine, but if you're a Windows user you're in for a bumpy ride.

mikekij 8y ago
Side thought- what an interesting change from the software world 10 years ago. Who would have thought windows support was a lower priority then OS X and Linux. Onward and upward!
- orclev 8y ago
  In this particular case it's all about Windows not having a decent SSH client. There's PuTTY... and uh... PuTTY. Oh, and you can sort of maybe run OpenSSH through LSFW or Cygwin, or maybe msys, but those all have some serious gotchas associated with them. Basically it boils down to, there's no standard Windows SSH client, and the ones that are available all have a laundry list of gotchas and problems, and that's without even bringing in the various git clients into consideration. OS X and Linux are low hanging fruit, they both come out of the box with a standard and well supported SSH clients.
  - sbradford26 8y ago
    So windows 10 has added openssh. I am not sure if it has left beta but it definitely is a step in the right direction. https://www.howtogeek.com/336775/how-to-enable-and-use-windows-10s-built-in-ssh-commands/ https://www.howtogeek.com/336775/how-to-enable-and-use-windo...

jiveturkey 8y ago

but does it work for browsing on the phone itself? if so, slam dunk. even without that, it is what U2F was always destined to become. it's especially better than u2fzero. ;)

ecesena 8y ago
> it's especially better than u2fzero. ;) genuinely curious: why? (disclaimer: I'm working on Solo, the successor of u2fzero)
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  look at my numerous comments in the 2 HN threads on solo/u2fzero.
  - ecesena 8y ago
    Yes, I'm aware of the general comments, I was trying to get to the core/specifics. For example, you mentioned multiple times that hardware breaks, can be stolen, the interfaces aren't standard. But all these things are actually true also for your phone: it breaks, it can be stolen (probably much easier than your keys), and chrome extension+push notification I wouldn't really call it more standard than USB. Again, I'm not trying to downplay Krypton, I like the phone solution a lot, I think it's much more usable than security keys. I use push notifications all the times e.g. via DUO. But I still think we need physical security keys against online attacks, for example as a mechanism to secure your phone itself.
phillipseamore 8y ago
Latest release notes for iOS app: Add support for logging into Google with Krypton locally on iOS (Google Advanced Protection program)
agrinman 8y ago
It does for Google logins, see the blog post here: https://krypt.co/blog/posts/use-google-advanced-protection-with-krypton.html https://krypt.co/blog/posts/use-google-advanced-protection-w... Hopefully other sites support iOS based callbacks soon.

jrockway 8y ago

What is the business model here? They release what they purport to be their source code on Github, but under a license that prohibits ... everything (literally the words "All Rights Reserved"). So clearly they want to sell that, and then have the open source community debug it for them for free, which I just don't see happening. With no way to validate that the source code on Github is what ends up in their compiled binaries, I don't see the value to anyone.

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
https://github.com/kryptco/krypton-android/blob/e5e1399caea422f36698f503c2d032b6be2c074d/LICENSE https://github.com/kryptco/krypton-android/blob/e5e1399caea4... You weren't kidding. :(
- CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
  Their CONTRIBUTING file does say "We are currently researching what type of license makes the most sense for Kryptonite." On the other hand, that file was last updated on `master` in January 2017.
- thrillgore 8y ago
  Someone paid attention to what Redislabs did, and wanted to get ahead of it. In the most ass way possible.
  - ramses0 8y ago
    Open Source != Free Software. "Free as in beer, not as in speech." You're welcome to pick your own license / source availability terms for your own work.
  - type0 8y ago
    Both are source available software [0], other than that you can't compare them. Krypton is fully proprietary nothing more nothing less, what RedisLabs did was a complete disservice to the whole open source phenomena without addressing any actual business concerns. They misinterpreted the whole clause thing to somehow say that your software can be both open and closed at the same time (it can't). They could at least had maybe done a minimal research and maybe learned somethings from Suns community source SCSL [1] or other similar liceses from the past and they even didn't bother doing that (the irony that SCSL is now hosted at Oracle speaks for itself). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software [1] https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/scsl-1-1-149938.txt https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/scsl-1-1-149938.txt

ademup 8y ago

Has this been audited? It sure seems like a wonderful/convenient alternative to hardware keys, but something makes me nervous about the phone aspect. I'd love to read more comments here from those more knowledgeable than I.

ecesena 8y ago
It doesn't seem this can really be FIDO, because FIDO only defines usb, nfc, and ble security keys. I'm not saying Krypton is bad, just that you're installing an extension that (I imagine) interacts with a server to send a push to your phone. It's a very different security model than keys, that require no extension and don't interact with any 3rd party. Update: I'm seeing that my comment is read as negative, and I don't want to give this impression. I think Krypton is great, I use 2FA over push notifications all the times myself. I was just trying to reply to the "has it been audited?" question. Edit: changed chrome extension -> extension according to comment below.
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  It certainly can be FIDO. USB can be virtualized. As far as the authenticating entity is concerned, it is transported over USB.
- orclev 8y ago
  You're wrong about the interaction model. When you install the client on your phone and pair it with a computer (via QR code) it generates a ssh key. You then need to import the public key into your github (or gitlab etc.) account same as you normally would. Once that's done on the client side there's a SSH plugin that is registered that intercepts the authentication request and pings the krypton server to sign your commit with the private key on your phone (the server relays the signing request to your phone via push notification). Assuming you approve everything on your phone the result is unwound back to your ssh client which finishes the handshake with the server and authorizes you based on the public key you had previously uploaded.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  FWIW, its not Chrome-only, which your post might imply. From the FAQ: "The Krypton browser extension currently only works on Google Chrome and Firefox. Safari, and Edge are coming soon." Also, it supports U2F. From the FAQ: "Krypton supports any site that supports U2F security keys." U2F is one of the two protocols supported by the FIDO standard (the other one is UAF). This doesn't say anything about whether this uses FIDO (v1) or FIDO2 though. I think this is pretty cool from a user friendly PoV. Google Android has something similar. The Facebook app doesn't AFAIK (I quit Facebook so cannot verify), but Battle.net does and so does Microsoft Authenticator. The disadvantage is that you need all these separate apps. I'd rather use just one.

CaliforniaKarl 8y ago

Ah yes, I remember seeing this before! This is interesting, because at work pretty much all of our logins (including for third-party services) go through SAML, where our IdPs use Duo for two-step. That gives us similar functionality to this, without needing to use a browser plugin. You do need to use an app, though, to avoid insecure SMS or voice. (Duo does support U2F, but it's not as obvious, because end users have to initiate the setup, and Duo instances that existed before U2F became available have it turned off—instance-wide—by default.) One thing you could do, assuming work uses Duo and U2F support is on: You could have a singly Krypton install for both personal and work (particularly if you have one mobile device). Then, enroll Krypton as your U2F device in Duo. I'm kindof surprised that either Duo or LastPass haven't bought out krypt.co yet…

judge2020 8y ago
> I'm kindof surprised that either Duo or LastPass haven't bought out krypt.co yet… Would be the perfect move for LastPass - around the beginning of this year Lastpass started a beta program for LastPass connect [0], however, was suddenly put on hold [1][2], and I think krypt's technology would be the perfect candidate to pull together the app. I also trust LogMeIn much more than I trust Krypt to not push out malicious binaries, so there's a plus for that. 0: https://www.lp-labs.com/ https://www.lp-labs.com/ 1: https://judge.sh/VBRJP4n.png https://judge.sh/VBRJP4n.png 2: https://www.androidauthority.com/lastpass-connect-861342/ https://www.androidauthority.com/lastpass-connect-861342/

amingilani 8y ago

This is going to change everything for me. You sirs, have cracked the hard problem: how do we make U2F easy enough for users to use without taking away the "something you have" aspect of it. This is brilliant. I love it! Now please fix the licensing, make the core open-source, be a bit more transparent, and get audited. It would really inspire a lot more confidence in a tool whose target audience is currently the security paranoid crowd.

danieldk 8y ago
I thought they already open source various parts, including the command-line client, iOS and Android applications? https://github.com/kryptco https://github.com/kryptco Edit: I didn't realize that they publish the source code, but with a non-FLOSS license.
jiveturkey 8y ago
> You sirs, have cracked the hard problem That's completely unfair. U2F was from the start designed to be rendered in this kind of form factor. "All" Krypton (and Duo, BTW) did was implement this obvious form factor. U2F itself, was the hard problem. And anyway, push 2FA has been around for approx. as long as U2F. It may not be obvious now, but U2F will ultimately die in favor of push. IMHO. (they each have strengths and weaknesses but overall push is better.)
- mtgx 8y ago
  Push = some company owns your 2FA credential, right? Or were you talking about something else?
  - mplewis 8y ago
    I think push means when you sign in, the server pushes a notification to your phone(s), which can accept or reject the request.
    - ztjio 8y ago

jonafato 8y ago

Can anyone comment on their "zero touch is safe" claim (https://krypt.co/faq/ https://krypt.co/faq/)? As far as I understand, tokens like YubiKeys require a touch as an explicit action by the user to prevent authentication without their knowledge. Doesn't a zero touch approach remove a security feature?

henryfjordan 8y ago
It depends on your threat model. You pair your phone and browser and then they can talk. Any time you want to log in through that browser it can talk to your phone and auth you automatically. For someone to exploit this, they'd need access to the computer with your browser. So if your laptop gets stolen, yes this is a bad idea, but I think most people think that they can just revoke the browser's keys if if the laptop gets stolen and they are way more likely to have their phone stolen anyway.
- jonafato 8y ago
  I was more thinking of malware / some otherwise rogue process. This seems like something that's worth having in the world of fake support remote desktop scams.
  - ReverseCold 8y ago
    That's so easy to bypass. 1. Wait for user to sign in. 2. Intercept their sign in. 3. User: "Oh, it didn't work. I'll just try again." 4. User tries again and it works. Attacker is also logged in now. Alternatively, at that point you could just inject JS into whatever website needed 2FA and do everything without the user noticing anything.
- ztjio 8y ago
  It wouldn't matter if they had their laptop stolen unless they also had their phone stolen. The keys are on the phone. Any new auth attempt would require the phone in proximity of the laptop. It connects via Bluetooth, not over the internet.
8y ago

aespinoza 8y ago

So what is the difference between Krypton and Duo? Why are they so innovative? By reading the website it seems they are doing the same thing as Duo.

jiveturkey 8y ago
they are hugely different. Duo is a full SSO and 2FA solution. Krypton supplies a few pieces at the edge.
- aespinoza 8y ago
  Interesting. I will check it out further. Thank you.

nikolay 8y ago

What happens when you upgrade or, God forbid, lose your phone? Do I need to redo everything from scratch like I have to do with my Krypton PGP and SSH keys? That's a no go for me. I'm pretty happy with 1Password already!

jiveturkey 8y ago
> Do I need to redo everything from scratch I would hope so. Anything less is not secure. (This is one of the basic "problems" with hardware authentication.) However, the software model allows for pre-arranged cloud sync between multiple devices. Given how Krypton handles PGP/SSH this support isn't there, but there's no technical obstacle.
- mtgx 8y ago
  Is there no way to provide some paper backup for U2F at least?
  - 0xCMP 8y ago
    Best bet is the service providing those kinds of codes for recovery. Twitter, Google, etc. provide them when you sign up for OTP and U2F.
    - nikolay 8y ago
      So, all this fancy security boils down to a notepad again. I am an early adopter of Krypton and I've been sorry so many times that I'm using it for SSH and PGP.
      - 0xCMP 8y ago
        I use for SSH, but yea I agree it could be better. I just got a Yubikey which I plan to replace Krypton daily and have it as a backup
  - jiveturkey 8y ago

noja 8y ago

From the FAQ: What if I lose my phone? Many websites require a backup two-factor authentication methods such as SMS and TOTP (authenticator 6 digit-code apps) even if you are using a U2F security key such as Krypton. For certain sites that allow U2F only (such as Google Advanced Protection), we recommend having a backup phone with separate Krypton U2F key setup or a physical hardware key that you store securely in somewhere. We are actively building a robust account recovery service with partners to solve this problem and make U2F/WebAuthn a viable "single-factor" login system. We hope this will remove the need for these backup methods that make your account vulnerable to phishing attacks. We also see this as a major barrier to wide adoption of U2F/WebAuth/2FA so we are eager to solve this problem.

jmuguy 8y ago

I've been using Krypton for SSH for a while (basically the private key is on the phone and you approve logins using the app, they must have just added U2F recently). Its worked really well and is super simple to setup when logging into a new server.

dijit 8y ago
It's also really nice for signing git commits. I like it a lot. (although I can't access the <teams> section of the app on an iPhone 5SE)

lvh 8y ago

We haven't audited this personally but I'm lsoking forward to doing so. This looks awesome -- my only problem is that it doesn't solve U2F/WebAuthn on the phone itself, which is still a lot more complicated on iOS than it is on Android (even though overall, I think iOS is a better platform than Android, at least from a security perspective).

agrinman 8y ago
On Android it works for any site that uses the standard U2F polyfill and allows the chrome/android user-agent. You can try it on your android phone at https://u2f.bin.coffee https://u2f.bin.coffee. On iOS it works for Google logins, see the blog post here: https://krypt.co/blog/posts/use-google-advanced-protection-with-krypton.html https://krypt.co/blog/posts/use-google-advanced-protection-w....

dabeeeenster 8y ago

Can someone explain how this works!? I have looked all over the Krypt website but I still don't get it?!

dabeeeenster 8y ago
OK finally found it in the FAQ for those that are slow like me: Is "zero touch" secure? How is it a second factor if it approves automatically? Yes, zero touch is safe. The security behind Krypton is established when you pair Krypton with your browser (via the extension) by scanning the QR code. This ensures that only your specific browser will be able to talk to Krypton. Krypton and your browser establish a secure cryptographic channel using keys that only your phone and computer have. There is NO trusted third-party. Two-factor is simply a way to defend against compromised passwords. If someone knows your password and attempts to login then they'll be hit with a second-factor challenge. Since this attacker is remote and doesn't have access to your browser they won't be able to talk to Krypton.
- lostmsu 8y ago
  If they steal password from your browser by, say, installing keylogger, that same keylogger can now also steal the computer side Krypton key. So zero touch does not help against that class of attacks, while normal U2F would.

amckinlay 8y ago

Should not be too hard to develop a free version of this. Do not look at their source code on GitHub, though.

maherbeg 8y ago

How does the browser communicate with the phone? Does it require an intermediary server that krypt.co runs?

dijit 8y ago
Yeah, it's using Amazon SQS. It's listed in their docs.
- maherbeg 8y ago
  Ah, yeah I see it now. It wasn't listed in the FAQ which would be useful. That's a slight bummer because now there's another service dependency in your authentication flow. It's probably pretty rare that SQS will go down, but still is a bummer.
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  oy. I'd assumed there was a browser-side USB->BLE plugin. This is horrible. Now the security of it is tied to the security of the stuff they have running in Amazon. Which they probably don't publish source code for? Even if they do, you have no way to know that is what is actually running. Not the mention reliability and availability concerns. ah well, I had such high hopes.
  - jiveturkey 8y ago
    After investigation, I have to retract my complaint. The browser-side agent is paired with your phone, Apple style. It's not a Google-style arrangement where you pair with Google and Google pairs with you, ie Google is in the middle. So as long as the source code for both parts (browser-side and phone-side) is there, and you can audit that the code viewable is the code installed, this is pretty solid. Of course the reliability and availability issue is still there.

oedmarap 8y ago

Just one gripe: I absolutely do not think it's a good idea to have zero-touch ON by default. I understand their argument about security vs. usability for laypeople as it's an age old one, but I think that applies better to situations where there's a marked tradeoff in principle. Tapping just once or reaching for one's phone doesn't detract from usability. Quite the contrary, it's a common sense approach (and teaches common sense security posture) to give one's explicit agreement for authentication, U2F or otherwise. Otherwise, the intended user base that zero-touch seems to target may end up being the same folks that question why it didn't work out of the box to protect their logins when their laptop gets physically compromised; since they assumed they didn't have to "understand or care about the differences between two-factor, U2F, or web authentication" in the first place, to quote the FAQ.

hasa 8y ago

I don't see much sense using U2F. If you just need a 2nd factor, then TOTP based solutions do it cheaper and easier. FIDO 2.0 is the way to go if FIDO is required.

moviuro 8y ago
TOTP requires: 1. sharing a secret (which is bad, and possibly already compromised by the time it reaches your device (phone)) 2. permanent attention to the domain. Remember similarities between the cyrillic a and latin a? (phishing, etc.)

shara_dun 8y ago

I just discover a lot of people are in debts and also under credit issues crisis, I was also among them before i met this great guy that change my life for good. I have about 5 accounts and i have debts in all. I also have 2 chase credit cards and 1 Amex that are maxed out already. My credit score is about 520 as at then. He helped me clear the debts on my 5 accounts within a week, He also got the debts on the credit cards done within a week as well. He helped me increase my credit score 850 excellent within 72 hours. All my accounts are free from debts and i can now use my credit cards peacefully as well. All thanks to the computer guru. You are worth publicizing for. (NASH89440 @ G MAIL. COM or +1(309)884-0215.

shara_dun 8y ago