Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

spec is missing baseline posture that credential source is bound to a particular authenticator #1122

Closed
equalsJeffH opened this issue Dec 15, 2018 · 5 comments · Fixed by #1226

Comments

@equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor

A reader asks:

Just a quick question on WebAuthn. My impression has always
been that the private key of a generated credential should never
leave the Authenticator.

But a casual read of w3c.github.io/webauthn/
doesn't give me any such language. There's "user deletes the
credential from the device" under Decommissioning, implicating that
the credential can only be on one device, but I fail to find anything
explicit on this topic. Am I missing something or am I mistaken about
credential export and import?

My brief answer:

Yes, that's the baseline posture.

Though, it is modulo some form of secure credentials migration/backup/recovery means, which we have not figured out yet and is a work in early progress. e.g. see issue #931

Yes, the spec is arguably missing something in terms of describing this and perhaps pointing to appropriate FIDO material.

@emlun
Copy link
Member

emlun commented Dec 19, 2018

There is one brief mention of this buried deep in the middle of §4. Terminology > Client-side-resident Public Key Credential Source:

[...] By definition, the credential private key is always exclusively controlled by the authenticator. [...]

@equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok, great, thanks -- so we can hopefully address this issue by referring back to that statement from appropriate places elsewhere in the spec.

@nadalin nadalin added this to the PropRec milestone Jan 9, 2019
@equalsJeffH equalsJeffH modified the milestones: PropRec, L2-WD-00 Jan 9, 2019
@jcjones
Copy link
Contributor

jcjones commented Jan 9, 2019

It seems like this is addressed, per #1122 (comment) and #1122 (comment)

@emlun
Copy link
Member

emlun commented Jan 18, 2019

Unassigning myself from this since I see no clear call to action.

@nadalin
Copy link
Contributor

nadalin commented Mar 13, 2019

@equalsJeffH can we close this ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants