720
GitHub auth (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 137 points 1 year ago (44 children)

I kinda hate the push towards passkeys. If you have two factor Auth, going to passkeys makes you go back to 1 factor, aka less secured.

There's also more and more 2FA fatigue attacks going on, and they can affect passkeys too, and if you don't have a 2FA that involves the user writing a code on the 2FA device, passkeys could be quite possibly worse than passwords

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 44 child comments
    •
  • [–] 73 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    I think this post is about git CLI, not www.github.com.

    SSH keys are very secure and you can still encrypt them with a password if you wish.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    encrypt them with a password if you wish.

    SSH keys without passphrases are just fancy credential files sitting in your .ssh/ directory, basically like writing your passwords on paper and leaving it in your desk drawer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Yeah, but who wants to type in a password everytime they push/pull?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Take a look at ssh-agent. It's bundled with ssh-client and designed to solve this problem.

    The quick usage is, create a terminal and run:

    eval `ssh-agent`
ssh-add /path/to/your/encrypted/key1
#type in password
ssh-add /path/to/your/encrypted/key2
... 

# all commands in this terminal will use the keys above w/o asking you for a password 
git clone git@githib.com...
git push... 
etc

    So, basically you type your credentials once during the life cycle of your terminal.

    If you really want to go full power-user, simple run ssh-agent (without the eval) and you'll see it just sets some env-vars, which can be imported into any terminal/shell you have open.

    So, if you put some logic in your shells rc file, you can effectively share a single ash-agent between all your shells, meaning you just need to type your password for your keys once when you log into your system... and your now passwordless for any future terminals you create (this is my setup).

    Also, if you're interested take a peek at the man pages for ash-agent. It has a few interesting features (ie: adding a password lock for your agent, removing keys from the agent, etc).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    but they require chmod 400 and they're ideally in on an encrypted disk

    So the desk drawer is locked and the codes are Luks encrypted.

    And for critical stuff, you should also have a password on the key.

    If your ssh keys are like a passwords on paper in a drawer, you're doing it wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Passkeys use public key authentication. This makes them very resistent to phishing attacks. It's also not possible for a phishing site to request authentication via a passkey created on a the original website.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In practice, they use Face ID, which has privacy implications.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    In practice, they either use system authentication if you use the implementation bundled with iOS/Android - and sure, that can be Face ID if setup, or other forms of biometric authentication. Both operating systems have APIs that allow password managers to provide their own implementation of passkeys, and in that case you have to authenticate with your password manager - sure most of them support using system authentication (biometrics) as well, but this could also be a master password or hardware key (which work very similar to passkeys by the way).

    I'd argue if you don't assume that whatever system you're using is reasonably secure/private, you probably shouldn't enter any passwords on that system either. This isn't a passkeys vs. passwords problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah. Passkeys are something I would love if they were a second factor because they are so much better than any other 2fa. And I use my yubikeys as second factors where I can. But why the hell would I not want a password too?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Passkeys are always supposed to be protected by another layer of authentication. e.g. a password should be required to unlock the passkey. If your passkey don't do that, stop using it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    If I provide passkey support and still require a password, most users will get annoyed and not bother. If I provide it as a replacement for password, then I can get them onboard more often. I'd rather have them using passkey than sticking with password.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It's different. It's still two factors if implemented correctly: 1. Possession of the passkey (better if you have a physical token, but passkey on your phone is passable). 2. Knowledge of your password (or bio authentication if you use face id or w/e).

    Note you are not giving your password to the website, and if a hacker gets hold of your password they still can't do anything without your passkey device.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Knowledge of your passwords

    Uh... What password?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Passkey should ask for a password for unlocking. If it doesn't then it's not implemented correctly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's client specific and my phone requires whatever can unlock the phone and chrome requires either windows hello or a pin if under linux.

    Certain implementations do whatever, and as far as the backend is concerned, there's no way of knowing, unless you want to get into the business of locking down specific vendor keys...

    But I say MFA is overrated versus just getting away from generally crappy password factors. Also passkeys are less phish-able than OTP type solutions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    Yes, it's implementation specific, in this case your phone, or your browser is the passkey "device". And as long as it's protected by some form of authentication it's OK (though I would recommend a hardware token over phones/browsers). If it doesn't then you shouldn't be using that "passkey". Yes, there is no way for the website you are authenticating with to know whether your passkey is safe or not, choosing a secure passkey implementation is (unfortunately) the user's job. But it's the same with more traditional 2FAs, e.g. you can store your TOTP secret securely or insecurely, and the website will have no way to know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Under passkey implementations, you need to unlock the passkey device with biometrics or passwords. Something you are/know (biometrics/passwords) and something you have (passkey).

    It's not impossible to screw it up. Put your passkeys in bitwarden, reuse a password and don't 2fa that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Also, what happens if your device with the passkey fails?

    Like the drive craps out?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    You are supposed to have two redundant ones. Hooked up to every service. One leaves the house with you, the other stays in a safe, and you rotate them periodically

    and nobody is gonna fucking do that lol

    Mine are USB-A and USB-C so no two computers can use both. One of them randomly quit working (something in the OS dropped support for it maybe?) but then I think started working again?

    At an old job I had a lot of control over my own infra and I used my HSM to log in to my forge. I haven't used it daily in years now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 42 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    If this isn't referring to the Git CLI that prompts the user for username and password for a GitHub remote repository and GitHub rejecting password auth, then disregard this rant.

    Git and GitHub are two seperate pieces of software. Git is the local client that does all the work and can optionally sync with a remote repository that can be stored in GitHub or GitLab or any other compatible remote. When Git asks for a password to authenticate, it has nothing to do with GitHub. GitHub then rejects that authentication method that Git provided because it believes that the method is insecure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I mean, that’s just the Git behavior.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Huh?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    GitHub hasn't allowed http pushes with password auth for a while. you need either to do an ssh push or use an api token. yet, anythime you do an http push for the first time, you are prompted for a password. the real reason for this is git, not github

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    http or https?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (3 replies)
    • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Still using Github, the American company owned by Micro$oft, known for deleting repos? I'd consider switching away from them, If you're able to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    They offer free build time on windows and mac. There are also specific integration for GitHub not available for other platforms. I don't rely on it for storing my code, just for building. I could spend a month and migrate to a different platform but so far there was no point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't know anything about passkeys but if Microsoft is pushing for them I am immediately suspicious. I am admittedly paranoid but if you have been an adult using a computer over the past ~15 years and aren't paranoid you haven't been paying enough attention

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    What happens to the account access if the passkey-registered device dies?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    You can have more than one passkey.

    You can still use password + 2fa

    You can use google oauth.

    You can use a YUBI key

    You should probably have a primary and secondary auth for every site.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (7 replies)
    • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    when they tell you to check your email for a code when you just put in your username and password

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments
    view more: next ›