7

I just learned about FIDO2 (WebAuthn) and try to make a comparison to the lesser-known novel SQRL authentication scheme.

Both seem to use the same key elements:

  • a private, user-resident "master key" thus not relying on a 3rd party like OAuth.
  • a specific piece of soft- or hardware managing the identity
  • a specific protocol to establish/claim an identity to a web server/service
  • an intermediate public key, derived from the master key
  • the intermediate public key is unique to a domain name, thus providing privacy against other servers/services on other domains
  • a changing challenge/nonce for each authentication attempt, to mitigate against replay attacks.

So, with this, is there a significant difference I did not spot yet?

Note: This is not about usability or specific implementations of it (clients or server components, but more about the architecture.


Resources for FIDO2

Resources for SQRL

0

1 Answer 1

1

The most different part between the two seems to be how identities for websites are created:

  • SQRL derives identities for all websites from the master key
  • FIDO creates and stores a random identity for each website

This means, that SQRL tightly binds a user identity to a website. See SQRL's Identity Lock Protocol. However, the concept of alternate identities is provided.

Also, the Transcript of Security now Episode #875 contains some comparative sections. Disclaimer: SQRL was createdy by Steve Gibson, which is also the host of the Security Now podcast.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .