Re: webauthn forces people to buy hardware

Hi John,

maybe your're right and I am misunderstanding the wording, you proofed 
the possibilty to implement it different to my interpretation.

I have tested and filed a bug on mozilla, lets see whats happening: 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1481890

If nobody else reads it as a buing force for users, then let it be as it 
is. Maybe only my opinion, or may only my preference doing this kind of 
things different for a worldwide community.

Regards,
Markus Schraeder

On 09.08.2018 20:03, John Bradley wrote:
>
> PS I think you need to turn off
>
> security.webauth.webauthn_enable_usbtoken;false
>
> Or it looks for an external token first.
>
> I just tested it on Microsoft’s webauthn test site
>
> https://webauthntest.azurewebsites.net/
>
> It works but FireFox is not prompting for user presence so I would not 
> use it myself.
>
> Perhaps you can contribute a better one.
>
> Regards
>
> John B.
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for 
> Windows 10
>
> *From: *John Bradley <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
> *Sent: *Thursday, August 9, 2018 1:55 PM
> *To: *Markus Schräder <mailto:markus.schraeder@cryptomagic.eu>; 
> Anthony Nadalin <mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com>; public-webauthn@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-webauthn@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: webauthn forces people to buy hardware
>
> FireFox  go to about:config
>
> Turn on
>
> security.webauth.webauthn;true
>
> and
>
> security.webauth.webauthn_enable_softtoken;true
>
> At least those are the flags in nightly.
>
> The softtoken is still in development, and probably not for production 
> yet if ever.
>
> One of the FireFox people can comment on that.
>
> My point being that it exists and is not precluded by the specification.
>
> John B.
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for 
> Windows 10
>
> *From: *Markus Schräder <mailto:markus.schraeder@cryptomagic.eu>
> *Sent: *Thursday, August 9, 2018 1:40 PM
> *To: *Anthony Nadalin <mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com>; 
> public-webauthn@w3.org <mailto:public-webauthn@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: webauthn forces people to buy hardware
>
> For example the current demos for firefox just do not work on my 
> system, cause there is now hardware device in background, yes, no 
> yubico device. So I now must ... lets guess... buy a yubico hardware 
> device to get webauthn working?
>
> > TPM is integrated inside Intel HW which is used for protection of HW 
> keys and hence as long as the PC ships in TPM enabled mode there is no 
> need to purchase additional HW to meet this requirement.
>
> What if I hava computer without or deactivated TPM?
>
> Do you still see no issue?
>
> For exactly this cases it should be ensured that every vendor has a 
> fallback via just software implemented, or the user get no security 
> without buying hardware.
>
> On 09.08.2018 19:29, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>
>     In the case that the device runs Windows there is no extra
>     hardware to purchase, also there is no requirement for hardware,
>     these can also be software keys, so I don’t see any issue here
>
>     *From:*Markus Schräder <markus.schraeder@cryptomagic.eu>
>     <mailto:markus.schraeder@cryptomagic.eu>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:20 AM
>     *To:* John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>;
>     public-webauthn@w3.org <mailto:public-webauthn@w3.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: webauthn forces people to buy hardware
>
>     Hi John,
>
>     it is understandable that a vendor of hardware tokens, here
>     yubico, likes the idea that - at least some - people are force to
>     buy a hardware from them.
>
>     I think a paper from/for webbrowser vendors should not support
>     this behavior and makes clear that a only software authenticator
>     MUST be implemented so this does not lead to a abuse of power by
>     forcing the users to buy this hardware.
>
>     You can say that this cases you mentioned makes this problem away
>     - I just do not think so. Any user who gets forced to buy this
>     hardware, without any need, is in my eyes a user too much. There
>     is just no need to not allow this, if you show the user a warning
>     - maybe every login - that this could be more secure by a hardware
>     token. But to not ensure that the user can do without - already in
>     the paper - is for me abusement of your power.
>
>     A paper should in my eyes also mention this ethical aspect and not
>     just skip this by cases where this is not a problem. I think
>     nobody should support this interest of companies like yubico, also
>     not for security - what by the way is not given at all: Also a
>     hardware token do not prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. It only
>     stops copying keys - but this is another disussion.
>
>     Regards,
>     Markus Schraeder
>
>     On 09.08.2018 18:39, John Bradley wrote:
>
>         Windows Edge supports platform a platform authenticator
>         unlocked by Windows Hello biometrics or by a pin.   At some
>         point the OS API for the platform authenticator will be opend
>         up to other browsers.   I beleve the keys are stored in the TPM.
>
>         Chrome has a platform authenticator behind a flag on OSX using
>         the touch bar,  and coming for Android.
>
>         Mozilla has some sort of beta test authenticator you can turn
>         on with a flag.
>
>         The question for cross platform clients is where to store the
>         private keys.
>
>         Based on attestations RP should be able to tell if the keys
>         are in hardware or in software.
>
>         Nothing prevents an entirely software authenticator.  It
>         however may be treated differently by some RP.
>
>         Our hope is that most devices will support some built in
>         secure key storage.
>
>         There is a separation between the software client that is part
>         of the browser and the authenticator.  However the
>         authenticator has more options than just a separate hardware
>         device.
>
>         Regards
>
>         John B.
>
>         Sent from Mail
>         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675774513&sdata=%2FJvKsQzgguxS9OHoQFl%2BN2%2FoQl2M8kQC%2BOWVCTF%2B8YQ%3D&reserved=0>
>         for Windows 10
>
>         *From: *Emil Lundberg <mailto:emil@yubico.com>
>         *Sent: *Thursday, August 9, 2018 12:28 PM
>         *To: *Markus Schräder <mailto:markus.schraeder@cryptomagic.eu>
>         *Cc: *public-webauthn@w3.org <mailto:public-webauthn@w3.org>
>         *Subject: *Re: webauthn forces people to buy hardware
>
>         This is a continuation of a discussion that started in issue
>         1027: https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1027
>         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwebauthn%2Fissues%2F1027&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675784517&sdata=o1Nw6d%2FlZ%2BghbQnPON0hsN%2F9gBQSR2o%2Bm9uEr14sl1k%3D&reserved=0>
>
>         >The paragraph 5. says, that Autentication has to be used on a
>         client platform, which is in 4. defined as a client software
>         and a client *hardware binding* - the software alone is not
>         allowed to authenticate.
>
>         No, the term "client platform
>         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwebauthn%2F%23client-platform&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675794521&sdata=u5kT%2BD5wOE6FYPA%2FEFLU1dkkhNSNWDKkjBqX7LHHKWM%3D&reserved=0>"
>         is defined as
>
>         >A client device
>         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwebauthn%2F%23client-device&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675794521&sdata=rrYPIufqnHLbPPrcqyhcSdLycO6IKb8kGIWG31aB%2BTE%3D&reserved=0>
>         and a client
>         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwebauthn%2F%23client&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675804530&sdata=GaLLQ%2FNMQCVLSrc8Kw%2BpduuoNHC5qcTsuJW6BtLa578%3D&reserved=0>
>         together make up a client platform
>         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwebauthn%2F%23client-platform&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675804530&sdata=reIfkG8ilmkCkps5QOpcvmYq8x%2B6FDYJuSI1dc4NSiI%3D&reserved=0>.
>
>         and "client device
>         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwebauthn%2F%23client-device&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675814546&sdata=2hQczhu43DZD3AkVeAFDF9vFBMwlOZjNmQGdE5NKeg0%3D&reserved=0>"
>         as
>
>         >The hardware device on which the WebAuthn Client
>         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwebauthn%2F%23webauthn-client&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675814546&sdata=tAMo4u7W60GtBzby76Hj%2FTKO%2BACSOSoPDUs5qV4vwG4%3D&reserved=0>
>         runs, for example a smartphone, a laptop computer or a desktop
>         computer, and the operating system running on that hardware.
>
>         These terms make no assumptions about whether the
>         authenticator is implemented in hardware or pure software.
>
>         >I think it is not a acceptable requirement for users to have to
>         buy hardware to be able to use webauthn. Or more precisely: To
>         exclude persons from webauthn who currently have no hardware
>         to be able to be used by webauthn, or to force them to buy one.
>
>         We do not expect most users to buy separate authenticator
>         hardware in order to use WebAuthn. It's more likely that most
>         users will use the platform authenticators integrated into
>         their mobile devices and laptops for most use cases, some of
>         which will likely also be made available to other devices as
>         external authenticators via Bluetooth.
>
>         I hope this goes some way to alleviate your concerns.
>
>         /Emil
>
>         On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:44 PM Markus Schräder
>         <markus.schraeder@cryptomagic.eu
>         <mailto:markus.schraeder@cryptomagic.eu>> wrote:
>
>             Hello Webautn,
>
>             I want to talk about an ethical aspect of the currently
>             webauthn paper.
>
>             The paragraph 5. says, that Autentication has to be used
>             on a client platform, which is in 4. defined as a client
>             software and a client *hardware binding* - the software
>             alone is not allowed to authenticate.
>
>             I think it is not a acceptable requirement for users to
>             have to buy hardware to be able to use webauthn. Or more
>             precisely: To exclude persons from webauthn who currently
>             have no hardware to be able to be used by webauthn, or to
>             force them to buy one.
>
>             Please think about this, and specify in the standard that
>             there be at best MUST be a way to fetch a public key
>             without a hardward binding in background if there is none.
>
>             Or ask: Is the other way, forcing your users to buy
>             hardware to regain security, realy ethically an option to
>             you?!
>
>             Regards,
>             Markus Schräder
>
>             P.S.: Are there established alternatives?
>
>             The alternative established easy(!) way, which we daily
>             use, *without hardware binding* just in the client
>             software, just got removed on chrome by removing the
>             keygen-tag and is also going to be removed by firefox
>             soon. There is a .p12 import alternative way on windows
>             and mac - but not for firefox. So we especially need in
>             firefox webauthn to able to allow users to get
>             authentication security.
>
>             The thing is: The removing from chrome does not hit many
>             users, cause you can simply import on windows and macos a
>             .p12 file and your're done. But firefox hat its own
>             certification store so this will not help in this case! If
>             firefox also removes the keygen-tag, and webautn will
>             exlude persons without a bought hardware token, you are
>             just taking a established security feature from them.
>
>             -- 
>
>             Markus Schräder
>
>             Geschäftsführer
>
>               
>
>             CryptoMagic GmbH,Werner-von-Siemens Str. 6, 86159 Augsburg
>             <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3DWerner-von-Siemens%2BStr.%2B6%2C%2B86159%2BAugsburg%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675824555&sdata=vAe1GIXkO89DxL6Q2XtLQfdTUiRYZtXEp0OErs7Otso%3D&reserved=0>,https://www.cryptomagic.eu
>             <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cryptomagic.eu&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675834563&sdata=yMf4O02TNdGeshzhNvn3EfBwmD6z1D93Qid0oSyxoSo%3D&reserved=0>
>
>             Tel: 0821 / 217 009-0 (Durchwahl: -11), Fax: 0821/217 009-99
>
>             Geschäftsführer: Markus Schräder
>
>             Sitz der Gesellschaft: Augsburg; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Augsburg; Registernummer: HRB30402
>
>             USt-ID: DE305330428, St-Nr: 103/123/80744
>
>         -- 
>
>         *Emil Lundberg*
>
>         Software Developer | *Yubico*
>         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yubico.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675834563&sdata=HayJPCYLLYZYmOdaDUVC2MCVzKI2tRKBehUJFOF%2Fb7I%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     Markus Schräder
>
>     Geschäftsführer
>
>       
>
>     CryptoMagic GmbH, Werner-von-Siemens Str. 6, 86159 Augsburg,https://www.cryptomagic.eu
>     <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cryptomagic.eu&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7C5c1ccde3575a4c56599a08d5fe1c7c92%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636694320675844567&sdata=Rca3gdJUDAzNW%2BDo69UiaoffOepHcWn62NYeMJaoPYk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>     Tel: 0821 / 217 009-0 (Durchwahl: -11), Fax: 0821/217 009-99
>
>     Geschäftsführer: Markus Schräder
>
>     Sitz der Gesellschaft: Augsburg; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Augsburg; Registernummer: HRB30402
>
>     USt-ID: DE305330428, St-Nr: 103/123/80744
>
> -- 
> Markus Schräder
> Geschäftsführer
> CryptoMagic GmbH, Werner-von-Siemens Str. 6, 86159 Augsburg,https://www.cryptomagic.eu
> Tel: 0821 / 217 009-0 (Durchwahl: -11), Fax: 0821/217 009-99
> Geschäftsführer: Markus Schräder
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Augsburg; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Augsburg; Registernummer: HRB30402
> USt-ID: DE305330428, St-Nr: 103/123/80744
>

-- 
Markus Schräder
Geschäftsführer

CryptoMagic GmbH, Werner-von-Siemens Str. 6, 86159 Augsburg, https://www.cryptomagic.eu
Tel: 0821 / 217 009-0 (Durchwahl: -11), Fax: 0821/217 009-99
Geschäftsführer: Markus Schräder
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Augsburg; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Augsburg; Registernummer: HRB30402
USt-ID: DE305330428, St-Nr: 103/123/80744

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2018 19:16:04 UTC