WebAuthn: Difference between revisions
Statement by Steve Gibson, security researcher, disputing WebAuthn can do single-factor |
Undid revision 886408224 by HandsOnTech (talk) Removed claim referring to Tweet from Steve Gibson. It is based on a misunderstanding of FIDO2, which he confuses with U2F, which could indeed only be used as a second-factor. |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
Despite these shortcomings Paragon Initiative Enterprises still encourage users to continue to use WebAuthn but have come up with some recommendations for potential implementors and developers of the standard that they hope can be implemented before the standard is finalized. Avoiding such mistakes as early as possible would prevent the industry from any challenges that are introduced by broken standards and the need for [[Backward_compatibility|backwards compatibility]]. | Despite these shortcomings Paragon Initiative Enterprises still encourage users to continue to use WebAuthn but have come up with some recommendations for potential implementors and developers of the standard that they hope can be implemented before the standard is finalized. Avoiding such mistakes as early as possible would prevent the industry from any challenges that are introduced by broken standards and the need for [[Backward_compatibility|backwards compatibility]]. | ||
== References == | == References == | ||