W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2018

Re: Question: WebAuthn announcement -- relation to DIDs?

From: Adam Powers <adam@fidoalliance.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:35:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CACu+4cuaS4fZjon--AgzqXFHnC1Z2CNnWATcjew4puG+2ZO7Xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Boscolo <chris@boscolo.net>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Answers inline below.


On April 13, 2018 at 9:25:33 AM, Chris Boscolo (chris@boscolo.net) wrote:

Adam,
I'm jumping in here mid-stream, so I apologize if my questions/comments
have been discussed.

In your presentation "WebAuthn & DID.pptx", I see two things that concern
me.

1) In the "DID Registration Flow" (slide 3), it looks like the "issuer" is
writing the user DID to the ledger.
Would this not create an undesirable public correlation between the user
DID and the issuer?

That may be my misunderstanding of the typical / existing DID registration
flow. As long as the public key exists in the ledger I think it's fine, but
it's probably worth a conversation of what that flow would look like
(especially with regards to the security model assumed by WebAuthn).

2) In all of the DID-based flows, it does not appear that the
"service/issuer" ever uses a unique DID when communicating with a user.
In most discussion of DID based SSI that I have seen, there are always
unique DIDs for each side of the communication.  How would this work in the
context of WebAuthn?

Interesting -- you're right, that's totally missing because I wasn't aware
that was an essential feature of DID. It may also address some of the
anti-phishing concerns that arise from removing / changing the origin. I
don't think it would be hard to add it into the protocol and it seems like
it could be a useful clarification.

2a) Is a per-user unique DID on the service side even feasible?

I don't follow the concern here.



   -chrisb

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:17 PM, Adam Powers <adam@fidoalliance.org> wrote:

> Great point, here are the links from my presentation (there were a couple
> other presentations as well):
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LyYp_SZpqboIPfUa1lo9zKtNv9SIv-5I?
> usp=sharing
>
> I think the only real problem we encountered was that (by design) WebAuthn
> uses "origin" to bind authentication to a specific service. It's a solvable
> problem, it will just take some conversation to figure out the pros and
> cons of some of the solutions that were mentioned. At the very least, it's
> implementable / demo-able now but the same DID can't be used across
> multiple sites until the origin issue gets solved.
>
> On April 12, 2018 at 10:19:06 AM, Andrew Hughes (
> andrewhughes3000@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> At the Internet Identity Workshop (IIW) last week in Mountain View, there
> were some sessions discussing exactly this topic - how should WebAuthn and
> Verifiable Credentials and Credentials Community Group work together -
> leaders from each of the efforts were in attendance.
>
> andrew.
>
> *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP
> *In Turn Information Management Consulting*
>
> o  +1 650.209.7542
> m +1 250.888.9474
> 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
> AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com
> ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
> *Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security *
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Adam Powers <adam@fidoalliance.org>
> wrote:
>
>> The quickest summary: WebAuthn is a way of generating public key pairs,
>> storing a public key on a server and the private key in an "authenticator",
>> and later using that key pair for authentication to a service.
>>
>> Insofar as DID is storing a public key in a DID document, that public key
>> can be generated by WebAuthn and stored by DID. The most obvious overlap
>> between DID and WebAuthn would be using WebAuthn as the mechanism for
>> DIDAuth -- although there is still some work that needs to happen there to
>> define and align the specs. In my perspective, they should be complimentary
>> and not competitive.
>>
>> I hope that helps.
>>
>> Adam Powers,
>> Technical Director, FIDO Alliance
>>
>>
>>
>> On April 12, 2018 at 9:24:03 AM, Steven Rowat (steven_rowat@sunshine.net)
>> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> The Guardian yesterday had a story of what appears to be a major
>> announcement about how WebAuthn will replace passwords:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/11/passwords
>> -webauthn-new-web-standard-designed-replace-login-method
>>
>> This included a quote showing that this is a W3C project:
>>
>> “WebAuthn will change the way that people access the Web,” said Jeff
>> Jaffe, chief executive of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the
>> body that controls web standards."
>>
>> And after looking at the recent API spec itself, I see that it's a
>> FIDO project, and so supported by Google, Microsoft, Paypal, and also
>> Mozilla:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2018/CR-webauthn-20180320/
>>
>> My Question:
>>
>> Is there any expected or known relationship between WebAuthn and the
>> use of DIDs? ie., Can WebAuthn be used with DIDs? Will the uptake of
>> WebAuthn preclude or inhibit the use of DIDs?
>>
>> ie., Are DID Docs and WebAuthn in competition, or are they complementary?
>>
>> Steven
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 13 April 2018 16:35:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:26 UTC