webauthn

Roxanna Cieplinska roxanna.cieplinska at gmail.com
Sat Mar 23 00:53:01 UTC 2019


Keep it short!

Roxanna I. Cieplinska
M: + 1 (415) 412-7699

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 22, 2019, at 5:50 PM, Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
> 
> I know it's a little tangential, but it's a huge operational issue for network operations too. Have any NANOG folks been paying attention to webauthn? i didn't know about until yesterday, though i wrote a proof of concept of something that looks a lot like webauthn in 2012. The thing that is kind of concerning to me is that there seems to be some amount of misconception (I hope!) that you need hardware or biometric or some non-password based authentication on the user device in the many write ups i've been reading. i sure hope that misconception doesn't take hold because there is nothing wrong with *local* password based authentication to unlock your credentials. i fear that if the misconception takes hold, it will cause the entire effort to tank. the issue with passwords is transmitting them over the wire, first and foremost. strong *local* passwords that unlock functionality is still perfectly fine for many many applications, IMO.
> 
> Which isn't to say that hardware/biometric is bad, it's just to say that they are separable problems with their own set of tradeoffs. NANOG folks sound like prime examples of who should be using 2 factor, etc. But we don't want to discourage, oh say, Epicurious to implement webauthn to get to my super-secret recipe box because they don't think people will buy id dongles.
> 
> Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190322/111e78cf/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list