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

Add a client setting around UV boolean on preferred #25

Open
Progdrasil opened this issue Jun 10, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Add a client setting around UV boolean on preferred #25

Progdrasil opened this issue Jun 10, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@Progdrasil
Copy link
Collaborator

Progdrasil commented Jun 10, 2024

Suggestion(follow-up): So this would put uv = true on preferred and required. This may not be true for other providers, they may want to do UV only on required for example. This should be a setting on the client that can be enabled. Not a blocking issue for this PR, I'm mainly adding this to create a follow-up issue about it.

Originally posted by @Progdrasil in #22 (comment)

@coroiu
Copy link
Contributor

coroiu commented Jun 11, 2024

Wouldn't this be against the spec?

https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-3/#sctn-createCredential
image

@Progdrasil
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Progdrasil commented Jun 11, 2024

Yes, however the operation should not fail if UV was not performed and the preference is "preferred". In practice its also been interpreted as "up to the client".

The thing is, I personally think this enum should have been passed to the authenticator directly and let the authenticator decide. I could have done that in this library but decided to follow CTAP which sets this as a boolean.

@coroiu
Copy link
Contributor

coroiu commented Jun 25, 2024

I personally think this enum should have been passed to the authenticator directly and let the authenticator decide

That's exactly how we've implemented it, we're setting aside value before calling the client and then use it in a wrapper around our own UserValidationMethod

@Progdrasil
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Progdrasil commented Jun 25, 2024

As a way to keep CTAP interface compatibility, we could implement this as an authenticator extension. We'll be bringing PRs soon adding extension infrastructure

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants