A rebuttal to an anti-passkey, pro-TOTP post that has made the rounds on Lemmy as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Imagine if HTTP explicitly documented as part of the standard that the "User-Agent" header, when provided, must include a tamper-proof cryptographic signature that allows to securely identify which browser version the user has (with a consortium maintaining a list of registered browsers) so that websites can reject access if you are not using a browser they trust or they don't like that your browser is too old...

Considering how much abuse there has been with the User-Agent header... I can't imagine it being a good idea to include such a thing in the standard.

If on creation HTTP had included things like that, then I think Gopher and other competitors at the time might not have been a bad option, honestly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    I don't see your point I'm sorry. This would make it easier for Google to exclude small competitors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago*

    The point is that not all protocols are created equal. So "we shouldn’t have created HTTP" depends on what HTTP is specifying.

    If a protocol makes it easier for big players to abuse the system, then it's a worse protocol in that respect.

    The point being made against passkeys is that, in some respects, it's worse because of the inclusion of attestation as part of the standard.

  • source
  • parent