2 ms·

I wouldn't worry about this too much, at least whilst the attestations in the spec remain anonymous this necessitates sharing attestation signing keys between

I wouldn't worry about this too much, at least whilst the attestations in the spec remain anonymous this necessitates sharing attestation signing keys between many devices if someone starts banning non-trusted attestations then attackers will extract and leak yubikey's/microsoft's/... attestation signing keys and which point anyone can sign whatever attestation they want then the other side has to decide whether they lock out & ban thousands of innocent users, or accept the loss of control

coldpie 1y ago
> then the other side has to decide whether they lock out & ban thousands of innocent users, or accept the loss of control My worry is more that relying parties will ban all providers except for (more or less) iOS and Android and Windows clients. That would cover probably 99% of users, but as a side-effect, effectively completely ban open source software from logging in to the service. It's not hard to see a well-meaning person flipping the switch to only allow big-name providers in the name of "security," especially given the existence of the spooky non-compliant list actively maintained by the spec authors. It's true we could work around this by stealing the tokens from approved software, but I am extremely uninterested in having my authentication rely on stolen attestation tokens.