zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. Godel_+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-01-27 22:15:31
The disclaimer on the linked page agrees with me.

"This project is proof-of-concept and a research platform. It is NOT meant for a daily usage. The cryptography implementations are not resistent against side-channel attacks."

replies(1): >>tialar+yy1
2. tialar+yy1[view] [source] 2022-01-28 12:12:34
>>Godel_+(OP)
There are a lot of other providers in this space, Yubico are the best known and probably one of the more competent offerings, but this is not a situation where the government is picking a winner by picking a standard.

A bunch of situations aren't going to end up with a separate physical authenticator anyway, they'll do WebAuthn, which in principle could be a Yubico Security Key or any of a dozen competitor products - but actually it's the contractor's iPhone, which can do the exact same trick. Or maybe it's a Pixel, or whatever the high-end Samsung phone is today.

That's what standardisation gets us. If CoolPhone Co. build a phone that actually uses a retina scan to unlock, they can do WebAuthn and deliver that security to your systems without you even touching your software. And yes, in the Hollywood movie version the tricky part is the synthetic eyeball so as to trick the retina scanner, but in the real world the problem is after you steal the ambassador's CoolPhone she can't play Wordle and she reports the problem to IT before you can conduct your break-in, synthetic eyeball or not.

replies(1): >>Godel_+m53
◧◩
3. Godel_+m53[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-28 19:55:19
>>tialar+yy1
There are not a lot of providers on the FIPS list though. Coupled with the fact that virtually all government employees use Windows computers, and you end up right back where we started. The only real competition is Windows hello.

The various auth apps are problematic because they usually come with some kind of requirement for intune or similar to do remote attestation. That's a weird place for the government to be with contractors, since a lot of those contacts don't have language requiring that contractors have a phone at all, much less that they allow the federal government to MDM it.

It could be providers other than yubico, but it won't be.

[go to top]