Passkeys leverage public-key cryptography to enhance login security. Instead of passwords, they utilize a private key stored on the user's device and a corresponding public key registered with the online service. During login, the device uses its private key to sign a challenge issued by the service, proving possession of the correct key without ever transmitting it. This process, based on established cryptographic principles and protocols like WebAuthn, eliminates the vulnerability of transmitting passwords and mitigates phishing attacks, as the private key never leaves the user's device and is tied to a specific website. This model ensures only the legitimate device can authenticate with the service.
WEIRD is a decentralized and encrypted platform for building and hosting websites. It prioritizes user autonomy and data ownership by allowing users to control their content and identity without relying on centralized servers or third-party providers. Websites are built using simple markdown and HTML, and can be accessed via a unique .weird domain. The project emphasizes privacy and security, using end-to-end encryption and distributed storage to protect user data from surveillance and censorship. It aims to be a resilient and accessible alternative to the traditional web.
Hacker News users discussed the privacy implications of WEIRD, questioning its reliance on a single server and the potential for data leaks or misuse. Some expressed skepticism about its practicality and long-term viability, particularly regarding scaling and maintenance. Others were interested in the technical details, inquiring about the specific technologies used and the possibility of self-hosting. The novel approach to web browsing was acknowledged, but concerns about censorship resistance and the centralized nature of the platform dominated the conversation. Several commenters compared WEIRD to other decentralized platforms and explored alternative approaches to achieving similar goals. There was also a discussion about the project's name and its potential to hinder wider adoption.
People with the last name "Null" face a constant barrage of computer-related problems because their name is a reserved term in programming, often signifying the absence of a value. This leads to errors on websites, databases, and various forms, frequently rejecting their name or causing transactions to fail. From travel bookings to insurance applications and even setting up utilities, their perfectly valid surname is misinterpreted by systems as missing information or an error, forcing them to resort to workarounds like using a middle name or initial to navigate the digital world. This highlights the challenge of reconciling real-world data with the rigid structure of computer systems and the often-overlooked consequences for those whose names conflict with programming conventions.
HN users discuss the wide range of issues caused by the last name "Null," a reserved keyword in many computer systems. Many shared similar experiences with problematic names, highlighting the challenges faced by those with names containing spaces, apostrophes, hyphens, or characters outside the standard ASCII set. Some commenters suggested technical solutions like escaping or encoding these names, while others pointed out the persistent nature of the problem due to legacy systems and poor coding practices. The lack of proper input validation was frequently cited as the root cause, with one user mentioning that SQL injection vulnerabilities often stem from similar issues. There's also discussion about the historical context of these limitations and the responsibility of developers to handle edge cases like these. A few users mentioned the ironic humor in a computer scientist having this particular surname, especially given its significance in programming.
The blog post argues that atproto offers a superior approach to online identity compared to existing centralized platforms. It emphasizes atproto's decentralized nature, enabling users to own their data and choose where it's stored, unlike platforms like Twitter where users are locked in. This ownership extends to usernames, which become portable across different atproto servers, preventing platform-specific lock-in and fostering a more federated social web. The post highlights the importance of cryptographic verification, allowing users to prove ownership of their identity and content across the decentralized network. This framework, the post concludes, establishes a stronger foundation for digital identity, giving users genuine control and portability.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of atproto, a decentralized social networking protocol, for identity ownership. Several commenters expressed skepticism about true decentralization, pointing out the potential for centralized control by Bluesky, the primary developers of atproto. Concerns were raised about Bluesky's venture capital funding and the possibility of future monetization strategies compromising the open nature of the protocol. Others questioned the practicality of user-hosted servers and the technical challenges of maintaining a truly distributed network. Some saw atproto as a positive step towards reclaiming online identity, while others remained unconvinced, viewing it as another iteration of existing social media platforms with similar centralization risks. The discussion also touched upon the complexities of content moderation and the potential for abuse in a decentralized environment. A few commenters highlighted the need for clear governance and community involvement to ensure atproto's success as a truly decentralized and user-owned social network.
Summary of Comments ( 78 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43983159
Hacker News users discussed the practicality and security implications of passkeys. Some expressed concern about vendor lock-in and the reliance on single providers like Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Others questioned the robustness of the recovery mechanisms and the potential for abuse or vulnerabilities in the biometric authentication process. The convenience and improved security compared to passwords were generally acknowledged, but skepticism remained about the long-term viability and potential for unforeseen issues with widespread adoption. A few commenters delved into the technical details, discussing the cryptographic primitives used and the specific aspects of the FIDO2 standard, while others focused on the user experience and potential challenges for less tech-savvy users.
The Hacker News post titled "The Cryptography Behind Passkeys" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43983159) has generated a moderate number of comments discussing various aspects of passkeys and their implementation.
Several commenters delve into the technical details of the cryptographic processes involved. One commenter clarifies the distinction between the private key never leaving the device and the public key being shared, emphasizing the security implications of this asymmetric cryptography. Another commenter questions the article's choice of elliptic curves, advocating for the use of Curve25519 due to its performance advantages and perceived security benefits. A related discussion thread emerges regarding the security considerations of using specific elliptic curves and the potential vulnerabilities they might present.
Practical implications and user experiences are also discussed. One commenter raises the issue of account recovery and how passkeys handle situations where a user loses access to their device. Another commenter expresses concern about the user experience of passkeys, especially during the initial setup and login processes. The potential for increased security and the elimination of passwords are acknowledged as benefits, but the commenter argues that a smoother user experience is crucial for widespread adoption. The topic of platform lock-in is also brought up, with commenters expressing concern about the potential for dependence on specific platforms and the implications for user freedom.
A few commenters offer insights into the implementation and standardization efforts around passkeys. One commenter points to the WebAuthn standard and FIDO2 as key components of the passkey ecosystem, highlighting the importance of open standards in ensuring interoperability. Another commenter mentions the challenges of cross-device compatibility and the need for seamless integration across different operating systems and browsers. A brief discussion arises about the role of biometrics in passkey authentication and the potential security and privacy trade-offs.
Overall, the comments section provides a valuable discussion of the technical, practical, and user-centric aspects of passkeys. The commenters explore the nuances of the cryptographic mechanisms, the potential benefits and drawbacks of passkey adoption, and the challenges of implementing a secure and user-friendly system. While some comments offer praise for the advancements offered by passkeys, others express reservations and concerns about specific implementation details and the potential for unforeseen issues.