Hacker News Reader

Comment by palata | Hacker News Reader

> And even with those benefits they're rapidly being replaced for a lot of people with PIN codes or mobile apps precisely because physical keys are suboptimal.

I would be careful with the use of "suboptimal" here. PIN codes or mobile apps are possibly more convenient to some people, not necessarily more secure (a PIN can leak, a smartphone can be hacked).

I would argue that hardware keys are optimal in the use-case they solve. It's just that not everybody wants to solve this use-case. And that's okay: passkeys should allow users to choose.

View on HN

Yea, the physical key is, to me at least, one of the top human inventions.

Ubiquitous, cheap, convenient, and provides sufficient security. My little brass key never needs charging, never refuses to open the door because I didn't apply the latest over-the-air update, doesn't phone home to an advertising firm to track every time I open and close a door.

I can make as many copies as I like and give them to friends and family in case I lose mine. There are some scenarios where it might be nice to have a smart lock, but for me at least, they are so few and far between that I'll stick with this tiny bit of metal.

I completely agree. I also call "citation needed" on physical keys being replaced.

This is valid: use case matters. But almost no one has a use case for which hardware keys are optimal.

If you live in an area where you don't have bars on your windows, you don't gain more security from using a physical key over a PIN or app. (Even if you do have bars, the physical key is likely still suboptimal).

If you're a regular user of the kind of application where anyone ever thought passwords were a valid authentication solution, you don't benefit from a hardware key.

And it's not just a question of more security than necessary: using a security mechanism that is overkill for your needs can actually leave you with lower total security, because you'll end up doing things to make your life more convenient that are worse than what you'd have done with a weaker mechanism (like in the physical case leaving the door unlocked to avoid locking yourself out).

I guess my point is: "don't ignore your tech-savvy users".

And more generally, don't think that 99.9999% of your users are morons. In this case, all it costs is to leave an alternative in the list.

Too much of the modern software completely sucks because the industry is obsessed with "hiding complexity". We should not hide complexity, we should offer abstractions on top, and leave access to the lower-level as much as possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com