The big thing missing from the article is how a device that contains many passkeys is any different from a password manager that enforces security settings. I don’t worry about passwords my password manager generates getting compromised because I use at least 24 random characters (assuming my password manager is using a cryptographically secure PRNG that guarantees some level of randomness, giving us more than 128 bits). Assuming I use that to manage the password to my email, I really only have to worry about my password manager key being compromised. I only used my password manager on trusted devices so I really only have to worry about my trusted devices being compromised.

If I use passkeys, I have to worry about my trusted devices being compromised. According to the article, “as long as you can remember your phone password, you can log in to your accounts.” That sounds like my password manager. The other benefits also sound like a combination of my password manager and privacy focus. I’m not saying this is bad; I just don’t see how it’s different from a security-conscious status quo.

I really don't want to use Passkeys until they can be stored in my password manager of choice on Linux, Android and Windows.

I wish first and foremost that all my accounts could support passkeys/passwordless sign ins instead of only like 12/60.

My second wish would be that passkeys should be as easy to work with as ssh keys. Somehow, they tend to be more complicated. Asking you if you want to use your phone or security key (when you have neither, you are using a password manager) and often failing to immediately detect your preferred method of storing them, defaulting to Google, Microsoft, or Apple's solutions.

Passkeys are not a panacea. They're an amalgam of multiple standards that half the time aren't implemented right or not fully supported. It's the industry's attempt to design-by-committee a one-size-fits all solution to many, many different problems. News flash: one-size-fits-all fits nobody well.

Passwords are a perfectly fine single factor. Add more factors to get more security, in specific use cases where they make sense. Passkeys don't fill the use case that a single-factor like passwords do.

Password Managers are also perfectly fine when combined with multiple factors and attack mitigations (and are certainly no worse than Passkeys we have now, key access managed by a central piece of software/key control/authorization). They solve many different use cases without breaking others. They're customizable, and not overly-dependent on standards. They are a loosely-coupled interface. They can be synchronized for multiple device/site access. They can be upgraded to support an infinite amount of security mechanisms. They can be changed in backwards-compatible ways, and they don't force one-size-fits-all on anybody. They even support Passkeys without forcing you to use them (though of course lots of Passkey software ignores the fact that you might have a password manager, and forces you to use the browser's Passkey store or nothing).

You want to uniquely identify a device? Fingerprint it on login. Having a separate passkey per device isn't any better, because if the attacker can get the device fingerprint, they can also probably get the passkey, because they have access to the device. And password reset still has to be a thing, because we all lose devices, backup codes, etc, so it's not like there isn't an easier attack anyway.

How is the passkey that much better than client-side certificates from 15 years ago? That was abandoned because of all the problems around key management; and now you want to bring back key management?!

Please stop trying to solve a problem by creating more problems. This is all about use cases. Just let users, and companies, decide what use cases they'll support. Don't force everyone to use a crap solution just because it makes big corporations happy.