5 ms·

Thanks for the background! That's helpful, I guess my question is more centered around the potential pitfalls of linking a physical device to a login, because t

Thanks for the background! That's helpful, I guess my question is more centered around the potential pitfalls of linking a physical device to a login, because that device contains a plethora of personal data it would seem we are required to expose much more information to sign up for a service, much like logging in with facebook shares additional data with the service in a non transparent manner?

ecesena 4y ago
On your FIDO key there's no data stored, not even the keys to connect to fb. When fb makes a request the (private) key is derived from the master secret (the only thing stored) and the signature is made.
- puppycodes 4y ago
  Ah interesting! Thats cool :) Aside from the FIDO transaction itself (which from your description sounds not to shabby) would you say then that passwords and FIDO are equivalent in terms of exposure of personal information? I guess I figured the location aspect seemed like a differentiating factor.
  - ecesena 4y ago
    FIDO is strictly better: with “password” you share your email + password with the server. If you use the same password on another site, the server knows your password. You may trust the server, but in case of a leak you’re doomed. With FIDO you share email + a signature that doesn’t reveal anything at all. Privacy aside, the FIDO signature also protects you against phishing as the (hostname of the) url that’s displayed in the browser is part of what it’s signed, so an attacker can’t reuse the signature to log you on a different domain — unlike the password (and other 2FA like otp codes) that can be phished.