Are Magic Links Outdated?(zitadel.com)
zitadel.com
Are Magic Links Outdated?
https://zitadel.com/blog/magic-links
229 comments
> MagicLinks are a mobile nightmare. Mobile email clients use their own browser and cookie jar which consume the session cookie you're trying to put into the user's main browser.
It might be howling into the void but the conclusion I reach from this is that "Mobile email clients are a nightmare".
Generally speaking, embedded browsers in mobile apps are a terrible idea and break user expectations in multiple ways.
It might be howling into the void but the conclusion I reach from this is that "Mobile email clients are a nightmare".
Generally speaking, embedded browsers in mobile apps are a terrible idea and break user expectations in multiple ways.
On the flip side, I find that opening links in isolated sessions very valuable, if not just because I don't want links sent by others to affect the Algorithm's perception of me. 80% of the time, I want to be a blank slate when interacting with in-app browsers.
I really want the choice. I hate that most iOS apps want to open links in their own webview instead of my default browser. Of course, when they DO use the default browser, I would like to have control over what context that browser uses to handle the link. Default? Private? Task-specific tab/container group? Ask me, please.
On Android, if you have more than 1 browser, and no default browser app (settings / apps / default apps / browser app), clicking a link will ask you which browser you want to use. For random one-time-usage links, I use Firefox Focus for that purpose. When it's closed it wipes all history, cookies etc. automatically.
Meanwhile if the stupid app decides to hijack the link and use in-app browser, you can't do that. And IAB typically means you can't have app and browser in parallel and switch between them from app launcher, which would be sometimes useful. Slack does that, and it's annoying. But at least you can right click> copy URL and open it manually in preferred browser.
Meanwhile if the stupid app decides to hijack the link and use in-app browser, you can't do that. And IAB typically means you can't have app and browser in parallel and switch between them from app launcher, which would be sometimes useful. Slack does that, and it's annoying. But at least you can right click> copy URL and open it manually in preferred browser.
Back in the day on the web site the marketing team always insisted links open in a new windows b/c customers won't ever come back if you direct them away. Eventually browsers let users override that nonsense. The insistence by our marketing team on all these embedded browsers reminds me of the same mindset in 2020.
I also believe links should open in the same window, but I've met people who religiously believe otherwise and they are not a part of marketing team
> It might be howling into the void but the conclusion I reach from this is that "Mobile email clients are a nightmare".
This is true, and as a user I want something better, but as a developer I need to build for what our users use.
I don't put "Site best viewed in Netscape Navigator", and I don't tell users they can only login on desktop.
This is true, and as a user I want something better, but as a developer I need to build for what our users use.
I don't put "Site best viewed in Netscape Navigator", and I don't tell users they can only login on desktop.
Totally agree. Same apps have an option to disable this behavior, but it's a chore to track down and update everywhere. I would love it if Android had an OS level setting to disable these and send every request to the default browser. That might cost Google some data/money so sadly it'll probably never happen.
Totally agree with this statement. In my apps, I have used magic links for desktop usage but on mobile apps, I opt for an OTP approach. Solves the same problem without the mobile email client issue.
It's actually pretty insane: there is a setting on Android to always use the main browser (Chrome) to open links, I've turned it on, and yet the Gmail app still opens the links in the embedded Chrome browser — which has different cookies, different history that apparently is not synced with my other Chromes, and even looks sli-i-ightly different than "normal" Chrome, somehow.
I've no idea why it is so difficult for apps to open links in the user-selected browser. Isn't it just "xdg-open https://example.com/"?
I've no idea why it is so difficult for apps to open links in the user-selected browser. Isn't it just "xdg-open https://example.com/"?
Uninstall chrome and use Firefox, and it works for me with full cookie sharing. There is even an "open in Firefox" in the hamburger drop-down which transfers the page to the browser app without reloading.
As an added bonus, Firefox on Android also support ublock origin.
I get that with Kiwi browser's custom tab as well. Kiwi is a fork of chrome for Android with extension support. Is it not in stock chrome?
Last time I tried Firefox on my Android phone it showed weird drawing artifacts (half/quarter of the page is full black) on pretty must all websites, so thanks for your suggestion but I'd stick with an actually working browser.
In any case, I don't need to bother about whether any "cookie sharing" works or not if I only use one browser, do I?
In any case, I don't need to bother about whether any "cookie sharing" works or not if I only use one browser, do I?
Can you uninstall chrome from most Android phones? I think I've tried in the past but failed.
Go to Settings, apps, search for Chrome and click the disable button.
The setting you're talking about is probably the OS level setting. There's an additional setting in the GMail app to do the same thing.
> It's actually pretty insane: there is a setting on Android to always use the main browser (Chrome) to open links
That is quite insane indeed.
And on top of that, Android keeps using Chrome as embedded browser. Even if you installed another one. MSHTML all over again.
That is quite insane indeed.
And on top of that, Android keeps using Chrome as embedded browser. Even if you installed another one. MSHTML all over again.
Before that (Android <5.0 times), you'd have a WebView strictly tied to the OS version and not upgradable if OS goes EOL. Even if device had Chrome 60, webview was based on Chromium 28-30 (depending on manufacturer). With no flexbox etc. As a dev, it was a MASSIVE pain to develop webview integrations with this. On par with IE8. Being able to have the webview upgraded without upgrading OS is a major win.
[Note there are two things: 1) stupid apps putting a generic in-app browser inside the app - that's annoying; and 2) apps using a webview with a bridge between native app and a website, injecting some stuff and properly integrating the embedded website; something impossible to do by opening a website in regular browser]
[Note there are two things: 1) stupid apps putting a generic in-app browser inside the app - that's annoying; and 2) apps using a webview with a bridge between native app and a website, injecting some stuff and properly integrating the embedded website; something impossible to do by opening a website in regular browser]
Many browsers such as Firefox and Kiwi let you enable them for 'custom tabs' which is the term for popup browser windows that you may be thinking of as embedded browsers. I think the setting is usually within the app's settings rather than the general android settings.
> I've no idea why it is so difficult for apps to open links in the user-selected browser. Isn't it just "xdg-open https://example.com/"?
No, theres implementation differences across API levels and the "shared cookie jar" implementation is newer and had some quirks. Its been a couple years since I was deep in this so it might have changed, but that was my experience back then.
No, theres implementation differences across API levels and the "shared cookie jar" implementation is newer and had some quirks. Its been a couple years since I was deep in this so it might have changed, but that was my experience back then.
> I've no idea why it is so difficult for apps to open links in the user-selected browser.
It's not, it's a conscious decision to open links in chrome from gmail.
It's not, it's a conscious decision to open links in chrome from gmail.
At Clerk, (https://clerk.dev, auth SaaS) we did a ton of work to get magic links to play nice with multiple devices, it's certainly a pain, and there's tradeoffs.
The crux of it is, do you sign in the "originating" device (where the magic link was sent from), or the "consuming" device (where it was clicked).
Because it's veryyy common for people to be on a website on their computer, then click the link on their phone, but still want to be logged into their computer. We opted for the "originating" device. But this has security concerns.
(you also need to worry about multiple tabs on the same browser, but cookies make this easy to deal with)
But, what if an attacker just sends a link to loads of email addresses, and one of the receivers clicks on it by accident? Their account now has been taken-over.
So, this needs to be combined with the notion of "trusted devices", and of course, not breaking what the user expects. All in all, a TON of work to get some marginal gains in some sectors, mainly B2C. IMO, B2B should always have passwords as an option. 1Pass is too widely used to ignore.
The crux of it is, do you sign in the "originating" device (where the magic link was sent from), or the "consuming" device (where it was clicked).
Because it's veryyy common for people to be on a website on their computer, then click the link on their phone, but still want to be logged into their computer. We opted for the "originating" device. But this has security concerns.
(you also need to worry about multiple tabs on the same browser, but cookies make this easy to deal with)
But, what if an attacker just sends a link to loads of email addresses, and one of the receivers clicks on it by accident? Their account now has been taken-over.
So, this needs to be combined with the notion of "trusted devices", and of course, not breaking what the user expects. All in all, a TON of work to get some marginal gains in some sectors, mainly B2C. IMO, B2B should always have passwords as an option. 1Pass is too widely used to ignore.
Never do this. Automated email scanners may fetch the URL. For example, Hotmail’s mail delivery process is notorious for triggering magic links.
You can defend against this a little bit by having the magic link load a page with a button (which submits a POST action) that you have to click.
[deleted]
> Mobile email clients use their own browser and cookie jar which consume the session cookie you're trying to put into the user's main browser. This results in users 'never staying signed in' and a lot of frustration.
The earliest Magic Links I remember using didn't have this problem, and this was before smartphones. The Link, back then at least, was only to authenticate that you can receive emails at a certain mailbox, not to authenticate whichever browser you used to open it. Your login attempt would keep the login (not logged-in) session open wherever you attempted to login from, while waiting for the Magic Link to be clicked on in the background. Whenever the Magic Link was clicked, irrespective of where it was clicked, your original browser session would stop waiting and log you in.
This also avoids the tedium of having to copy a link or code from one device/app to another. Just click, a browser tab/window opens for a short time, and then closes automatically after doing its job; you go back to wherever you attempted to log in, and simply proceed. This also simplifies post-login flows (like visiting a specific page you tried to access before being forced to login) in that such flows don't need to be tied to the Magic Link itself.
The earliest Magic Links I remember using didn't have this problem, and this was before smartphones. The Link, back then at least, was only to authenticate that you can receive emails at a certain mailbox, not to authenticate whichever browser you used to open it. Your login attempt would keep the login (not logged-in) session open wherever you attempted to login from, while waiting for the Magic Link to be clicked on in the background. Whenever the Magic Link was clicked, irrespective of where it was clicked, your original browser session would stop waiting and log you in.
This also avoids the tedium of having to copy a link or code from one device/app to another. Just click, a browser tab/window opens for a short time, and then closes automatically after doing its job; you go back to wherever you attempted to log in, and simply proceed. This also simplifies post-login flows (like visiting a specific page you tried to access before being forced to login) in that such flows don't need to be tied to the Magic Link itself.
You have to deal with 'email antivirus scanners' which click every link in a mail sent to every user in some sandboxed browser.
If your user has one of those, then their account effectively has zero security since an attacker can attempt to log in, and the web security software will click the link, and the attacker (in the originating browser) is now logged in.
If your user has one of those, then their account effectively has zero security since an attacker can attempt to log in, and the web security software will click the link, and the attacker (in the originating browser) is now logged in.
[deleted]
Those destroy the links anyway; I can never reset a Salesforce password because the link is always “expired”.
That seems extremely unsafe, email being what email is, there are many layers of automation that may access that link unprompted: a spam/virus filter on the server or the client may access it to verify it is not some malware, a email client may access it to preload assets, etc. So if a malicious actor starts a login on one of my accounts, and somewhere along my email chain-of-custody/stack a helpful software access that link for some reason, then the malicious actor will be authenticated.
A site could mitigate this by responding with a form to be posted, asking the user to click a button to verify. Only the POST request after user interaction would verify the email address.
I think this is an important point that is often overlooked.
I can quickly access email on my phone - that doesn't necessarily mean I want to log in on my phone.
I can quickly access email on my phone - that doesn't necessarily mean I want to log in on my phone.
As a user the problem I run into with some frequency is passwordless login where the waiting session loses its “waiting” status because I switched the active application in iOS from my browser to my email and back again. When I get back, the page for whatever reason (refresh after being backgrounded?) requires a new auth attempt.
A wrinkle in this complaint is that in most scenarios I don’t especially want a browser tab to be able to hold onto a persistent session while it’s closed due to privacy reasons, regardless of where that session state is held (and I realize there are a number of options).
A wrinkle in this complaint is that in most scenarios I don’t especially want a browser tab to be able to hold onto a persistent session while it’s closed due to privacy reasons, regardless of where that session state is held (and I realize there are a number of options).
> (refresh after being backgrounded?)
This is a problem on low memory devices - the page gets forced to refresh because the system ran out of RAM. The iPhone 13 only has 4GB of RAM, and with many apps requiring 2+GB, it is frequent a web page can't stay loaded in the background.
Most android devices have 8GB plus RAM, so shouldn't hit that issue, although it still happens on very low end devices.
This is a problem on low memory devices - the page gets forced to refresh because the system ran out of RAM. The iPhone 13 only has 4GB of RAM, and with many apps requiring 2+GB, it is frequent a web page can't stay loaded in the background.
Most android devices have 8GB plus RAM, so shouldn't hit that issue, although it still happens on very low end devices.
They can take my iPhone 7 and its 2GB of RAM over its dead body.
This took me a bit of time to realise, but well-designed software can avoid this problem rather simply: Combine the Magic Link with a short-code that can be manually typed into the browser session attempting to login. This short-code can then be prominently displayed in the email header and/or early on in the email body, so a user can simply read it off the notification that the email would generate. No need to switch apps from browser to email.
A simple workaround for the implementation is to redirect you to a URL with the code hashed as a query parameter.
Yes, I was thinking about that, as something like a TOTP. But that needs to be done via DNS-over-HTTPS or DNS-over-TLS or else the code can be sniffed by a MITM since the URL is sent in the clear, at which point you’re back to the problem of persistent TLS anyway.
Edit: In fact, nevermind. My thinking on that was flawed. I think you’re right, that should be fine, as long as the DNS is encrypted.
Edit: In fact, nevermind. My thinking on that was flawed. I think you’re right, that should be fine, as long as the DNS is encrypted.
I just recently implemented a magic link flow for a project I’m working on, and “authenticated in the originating browser” was a high priority item for me.
I think it’s just so much nicer of an experience to not have to worry where you go check the email or which browser opens when you click the link there.
The site you used to login was clearly where you intended to be, so that should definitely be one of the authenticated sessions when you click the link.
I think it’s just so much nicer of an experience to not have to worry where you go check the email or which browser opens when you click the link there.
The site you used to login was clearly where you intended to be, so that should definitely be one of the authenticated sessions when you click the link.
The issue I ran into with this was I could initiate a login for anyone and if they accidentally hit the link I could remote login.
Switched to pin code entry, less fancy but achieves all the desired UX
Switched to pin code entry, less fancy but achieves all the desired UX
I think that’s totally fair. The site I’m working on is pretty low stakes from a security perspective (a private personal blog), with less technical people in the audience, so I was willing to make that trade off for the UX outcome I wanted, but that was specific to the damage of a breach in my specific use case.
>Your login attempt would keep the login (not logged-in) session open wherever you attempted to login from
While I generally agree that this behavior is correct from a usability standpoint, it's not safe. That design allows a user to do a one-click account compromise when they receive a magic link that was sent in response to the login attempt of an attacker that happened to know the user's email address.
While I generally agree that this behavior is correct from a usability standpoint, it's not safe. That design allows a user to do a one-click account compromise when they receive a magic link that was sent in response to the login attempt of an attacker that happened to know the user's email address.
So add a step that requires "knowledge transfer" between the login device and confirmation device. Microsoft does this in their authenticator app showing essentially three confirmation buttons with different numbers on them, and requiring you to press the one being shown on the login screen. Worst case you now have one-in-three-clicks account compromise rater than one-click. And hopefully this also causes the user to ask why they are being required to log in if the app is not displaying the confirmation data.
How I handle this is as follows, within a B2B context. The email sent to the user contains both a magic link and a code.
If the user clicks the magic link from the same device that they initiated the login from, it just opens straight into the app.
If the user clicks the magic link from a different device, it confirms the token and then the browser waiting on the original device logs in. It uses a generic browser/server messaging library to achieve this, based on whichever of HTTP SSE, WebSockets and polling is available.
If the user can't do either of these for whatever reason, such as email virus scanning or whatever, the bottom of the email also contains a code which can be entered onto the waiting login form, along with some information about never giving that code out to anyone else on the phone and checking the URL.
The magic link also has an interstitial page with an automatic POST form to deal with browsers and other things pre-opening links. There are also various points along the way that it attempts to check for phishing and perform additional interventions, such as if the magic link is clicked from a different country to the login request, or if the request is coming from a suspicious location, etc.
After all this is complete, it then does 2FA using SMS. The magic link login is only needed the first time you log in on a given browser as it saves a persistent cookie, but the SMS 2FA is needed every time. We don't support persistent sessions due to legal requirements.
We are also working on adding webauthn authentication, but early testing suggests most users find it very confusing. Mobile devices tend to handle it acceptably, but Windows' implementation in particular is currently very user hostile and often users worry they are being hacked. It also doesn't replace the email/SMS-OTP flow, because if the user is logging in from a new device, we still need a way to validate that it's them before they can subsequently authenticate with webauthn. We also support SAML SSO.
Most users are not interested whatsoever in carrying around a Yubikey. Even just using SMS-OTP got a lot of push back for being inconvenient. I think FIDO2 will work better for users when there's a good way of automatically synchronising their keys across all of their devices in a vendor-neutral.
If the user clicks the magic link from the same device that they initiated the login from, it just opens straight into the app.
If the user clicks the magic link from a different device, it confirms the token and then the browser waiting on the original device logs in. It uses a generic browser/server messaging library to achieve this, based on whichever of HTTP SSE, WebSockets and polling is available.
If the user can't do either of these for whatever reason, such as email virus scanning or whatever, the bottom of the email also contains a code which can be entered onto the waiting login form, along with some information about never giving that code out to anyone else on the phone and checking the URL.
The magic link also has an interstitial page with an automatic POST form to deal with browsers and other things pre-opening links. There are also various points along the way that it attempts to check for phishing and perform additional interventions, such as if the magic link is clicked from a different country to the login request, or if the request is coming from a suspicious location, etc.
After all this is complete, it then does 2FA using SMS. The magic link login is only needed the first time you log in on a given browser as it saves a persistent cookie, but the SMS 2FA is needed every time. We don't support persistent sessions due to legal requirements.
We are also working on adding webauthn authentication, but early testing suggests most users find it very confusing. Mobile devices tend to handle it acceptably, but Windows' implementation in particular is currently very user hostile and often users worry they are being hacked. It also doesn't replace the email/SMS-OTP flow, because if the user is logging in from a new device, we still need a way to validate that it's them before they can subsequently authenticate with webauthn. We also support SAML SSO.
Most users are not interested whatsoever in carrying around a Yubikey. Even just using SMS-OTP got a lot of push back for being inconvenient. I think FIDO2 will work better for users when there's a good way of automatically synchronising their keys across all of their devices in a vendor-neutral.
I worked on a project where we used magic links (using Firebase) for users to checkin at an event using an app. It was a disaster.
For a lot of users the link didn't open in the app the way it was supposed to. Another surprisingly large subset of users had two phones, but the app wasn't on the phone they used for email. A one-time code definitely would have been better than a link.
For a lot of users the link didn't open in the app the way it was supposed to. Another surprisingly large subset of users had two phones, but the app wasn't on the phone they used for email. A one-time code definitely would have been better than a link.
Lots of issues with magic links. And yet, and yet. For a certain class of accounts, I'm okay deferring to my email inbox.
From a security perspective as a user, it's no different than deferring to a social provider like Google, but has the benefit in that it gives a user more control over the third party they choose to delegate control to.
You allow username/password access and that's great too. I'm a fan of giving users options, but I don't know if anyone has done studies and found that a single login option actually is better for conversion. I'd be interested in seeing some numbers around that.
I wouldn't recommend a magic link for high value accounts, but I have pretty easy access to my mailbox, from everywhere (in contrast to my password manager, which is cumbersome to use from different accounts). I can also forward the email with the link to any device where I have email.
If it is a low-value account that I use infrequently, I'm a fan. The alternative is to just use 'forgot password' to get a link that resets my password. That is pretty much the same functionality.
I guess the hard part there is that no one building software thinks their app is 'low-value'. :)
From a security perspective as a user, it's no different than deferring to a social provider like Google, but has the benefit in that it gives a user more control over the third party they choose to delegate control to.
You allow username/password access and that's great too. I'm a fan of giving users options, but I don't know if anyone has done studies and found that a single login option actually is better for conversion. I'd be interested in seeing some numbers around that.
I wouldn't recommend a magic link for high value accounts, but I have pretty easy access to my mailbox, from everywhere (in contrast to my password manager, which is cumbersome to use from different accounts). I can also forward the email with the link to any device where I have email.
If it is a low-value account that I use infrequently, I'm a fan. The alternative is to just use 'forgot password' to get a link that resets my password. That is pretty much the same functionality.
I guess the hard part there is that no one building software thinks their app is 'low-value'. :)
From a security perspective, most passwords can be reset by email, so sending a magic link or code to the email has approximately the same security properties.
The only real difference is if the password reset forces you to change the password and logs you out everywhere, then you can at least detect the break-in more quickly with the password approach.
The only real difference is if the password reset forces you to change the password and logs you out everywhere, then you can at least detect the break-in more quickly with the password approach.
>I guess the hard part there is that no one building software thinks their app is 'low-value'.
I know the things I'm working on are low-value and appreciate it. In fact, I genuinely dread ever working on something high-value.
I know the things I'm working on are low-value and appreciate it. In fact, I genuinely dread ever working on something high-value.
If the high value account does password resets via email a magic link email is no less secure. Even banks do password resets by email but combine it with private info like SSN which really isn't private due to all the breaches like equinox.
Email is the master key to most of your accounts.
Email is the master key to most of your accounts.
> Email is the master key to most of your accounts.
I’ve been mulling over ideas for this in my head for a while, about fully standardizing the magic-link-to-login approach as a full single-sign-on implementation.
Sites could craft an email with a specific header scheme that denotes what it’s trying to do, for what website, and what the magic link key is. The body of the email would still look like a regular magic link email as it does today, as a graceful fallback behavior.
The website login screen could detect if the user agent supported magic links (best way to do this detection is TBD…), the requirements being be that (a) The OS has an email account configured for the user (like via Mail.app or similar), and (b) the OS can broker the security information of the magic links to the browser so that it doesn’t need “full” access to your email, just a standardized API for the browser to get the magic link header info.
If everything checks out, the UX for the login page would be:
- User: enters email address to log in with, hits submit
- Webpage: renders a quick loading spinner
- Website: Sends a magic link email to the email address
- OS: Sees the special magic link email and notices that the browser is in focus on the same origin (using an origin policy that requires the magic link’s headers matches the same origin as the page)
- Browser: Gets magic link/token from the OS
- Browser: Submits token to website
- User sees the login succeed.
- (Optional:) The mail client puts the email itself in a trash folder or some other place so the user doesn’t even notice it (although they should be able to dig it up if they want.)
The graceful fallback if the browser/OS setup is not supported would be that the website just renders the same “check your email for a link” page it would have normally sent.
Apple has enough integration to easily implement this on iOS and macOS, it would be great to see this happen. They already implement autofill for security codes sent to SMS or email, so they already have a similar level of integration, it just needs to be made seamless and not even require user input. It could also be a totally open standard so that any OS/desktop environment/etc could implement it.
I’ve been mulling over ideas for this in my head for a while, about fully standardizing the magic-link-to-login approach as a full single-sign-on implementation.
Sites could craft an email with a specific header scheme that denotes what it’s trying to do, for what website, and what the magic link key is. The body of the email would still look like a regular magic link email as it does today, as a graceful fallback behavior.
The website login screen could detect if the user agent supported magic links (best way to do this detection is TBD…), the requirements being be that (a) The OS has an email account configured for the user (like via Mail.app or similar), and (b) the OS can broker the security information of the magic links to the browser so that it doesn’t need “full” access to your email, just a standardized API for the browser to get the magic link header info.
If everything checks out, the UX for the login page would be:
- User: enters email address to log in with, hits submit
- Webpage: renders a quick loading spinner
- Website: Sends a magic link email to the email address
- OS: Sees the special magic link email and notices that the browser is in focus on the same origin (using an origin policy that requires the magic link’s headers matches the same origin as the page)
- Browser: Gets magic link/token from the OS
- Browser: Submits token to website
- User sees the login succeed.
- (Optional:) The mail client puts the email itself in a trash folder or some other place so the user doesn’t even notice it (although they should be able to dig it up if they want.)
The graceful fallback if the browser/OS setup is not supported would be that the website just renders the same “check your email for a link” page it would have normally sent.
Apple has enough integration to easily implement this on iOS and macOS, it would be great to see this happen. They already implement autofill for security codes sent to SMS or email, so they already have a similar level of integration, it just needs to be made seamless and not even require user input. It could also be a totally open standard so that any OS/desktop environment/etc could implement it.
I was recently thinking something similar for implementing a 2fa similar to how Google and Apple do it: pop up a notification on your phone asking "Is this login you?"
Throw some structured data into the email. Email clients can detect and do the popup that hits a callback endpoint. Clients that don't support it still get the code via regular email.
I avoid the OS-layer implementation at the expense of the user having to confirm it's them, but this also means it works cross-device, which is what I'd want for 2fa anyway.
Throw some structured data into the email. Email clients can detect and do the popup that hits a callback endpoint. Clients that don't support it still get the code via regular email.
I avoid the OS-layer implementation at the expense of the user having to confirm it's them, but this also means it works cross-device, which is what I'd want for 2fa anyway.
What is the win of this over webauthn (if the website supports it)? I guess the big win is that the graceful fallback is smoother.
Seems like a lot of moving pieces that only an OS vendor (who controls both the browser and the email client and could build the integration between them) could implement.
Seems like a lot of moving pieces that only an OS vendor (who controls both the browser and the email client and could build the integration between them) could implement.
Webauth authenticates the device. Still need a way to authenticate the user then you can use webauth going forward on the device. This is assuming you’re using the TPM chip on the device and another FIDO2 device. Standard user won’t have a FIDO2 device like a yubikey but if their phone or computer is relatively new, they will have a TPM chip.
They don't need to be - this is a limitation of how the site has implemented magic links. When implemented best, clicking the magic link in your email should simply confirm the authentication, and your _original_ browser window/tab should be signed in.
That way, you can be signing in on a desktop browser, click the email link on your phone (or a different browser sandbox), and the desktop window will be signed in.
That way, you can be signing in on a desktop browser, click the email link on your phone (or a different browser sandbox), and the desktop window will be signed in.
An adversary prompts the website to send you a magic link. You happen to click on it by chance. Guess who has access to your account?
As others have pointed out, either login when the user has both generated and clicked on the magic link from the same IP (browser, where possible), or use magic codes (as opposed to links).
As others have pointed out, either login when the user has both generated and clicked on the magic link from the same IP (browser, where possible), or use magic codes (as opposed to links).
It’s just like anti-CSRF tokens, lots of edge cases and it’s hard to get right.
I don’t have a pw manager on my mobile device nor do I want one, getting a 35+ char into an input field on my phone is a PITA.
I don’t have a pw manager on my mobile device nor do I want one, getting a 35+ char into an input field on my phone is a PITA.
Does a password manager and browser extension not fix this? I use 1password on iOS and almost never have to copy and paste or (worse) type a password in. I just FaceID then pick the credentials I want to use to log in and the extension fills in the relevant form fields.
> It’s just like anti-CSRF tokens, lots of edge cases and it’s hard to get right.
Do you have an example of the problems you've encountered? This is normally a turn-on-and-forget setting which is only slightly harder if you're using JavaScript to submit forms.
> I don’t have a pw manager on my mobile device nor do I want one, getting a 35+ char into an input field on my phone is a PITA.
What's your threat model for using long passwords but not using a password manager? I can understand why you might not want to store it on a cloud service even if it is encrypted but local storage is going to be more secure than entering it by hand if for no reason other than that it's harder to shoulder surf and harder to phish.
Do you have an example of the problems you've encountered? This is normally a turn-on-and-forget setting which is only slightly harder if you're using JavaScript to submit forms.
> I don’t have a pw manager on my mobile device nor do I want one, getting a 35+ char into an input field on my phone is a PITA.
What's your threat model for using long passwords but not using a password manager? I can understand why you might not want to store it on a cloud service even if it is encrypted but local storage is going to be more secure than entering it by hand if for no reason other than that it's harder to shoulder surf and harder to phish.
Whats so hard about anti csrf tokens?
yeah on Discord this is almost magic.
The stock mail app on iOS just opens links in safari
one time code is far, far easier when apple is able to autocomplete it
Interesting - thanks for sharing!
A totally unbiased article for sure /s
These guys sell a auth/login system, it's no surprise they are anti-magic-links.
I understand the annoyances for the more tech-minded among us, myself included, but I've implemented this before and for your average user it's a pretty good system. With Universal Links/App Links you sidestep a number of the issue with email clients having their own in-app browser. Also this makes your signup/signin process the same flow (and only 1 step) which is easier for people who aren't as technically minded.
I used this method for a food festival (you buy the festival's currency to spend on food/drinks, it's just a digital version of the paper/ticket/token-systems a lot of a festivals use) and we only had 1-2 people who had issues (email took a few minutes to get to them for some reason) out of thousands.
It's all about knowing your customer base, in the future I might implement the ability to set a password but I'd be the number of people who use that option will be vanishingly small (again, based on the demographics of people using my platform).
These guys sell a auth/login system, it's no surprise they are anti-magic-links.
I understand the annoyances for the more tech-minded among us, myself included, but I've implemented this before and for your average user it's a pretty good system. With Universal Links/App Links you sidestep a number of the issue with email clients having their own in-app browser. Also this makes your signup/signin process the same flow (and only 1 step) which is easier for people who aren't as technically minded.
I used this method for a food festival (you buy the festival's currency to spend on food/drinks, it's just a digital version of the paper/ticket/token-systems a lot of a festivals use) and we only had 1-2 people who had issues (email took a few minutes to get to them for some reason) out of thousands.
It's all about knowing your customer base, in the future I might implement the ability to set a password but I'd be the number of people who use that option will be vanishingly small (again, based on the demographics of people using my platform).
I hate them. Force me to go to my mailbox while I have a good password manager and just want to use that instead. I get the idea, but this should be an alternative, not a default. Also sends loads of single use emails that will remain for ever in users mailboxes.
If it's magic link or multi-factor authentication, I know which one I prefer. Try explaining to an MFA-loving service that your phone is out of action while it's being repaired.
1password and Lastpass both manage MFA codes and work cross-device. If your phone is your only way to get into MFA protected accounts, you're doing it wrong. What happens if you can't repair your phone?
If you're storing your "multi-factor" authentication codes in the same place (ahem, "factor") as your password, you're doing it wrong.
I used to think this but I don’t agree any more. A factor is a factor: your service password + your password manager password = 2 factors. Yes, if someone compromises your password manager then you’re in a bad position but that’s not what service-level multi-factor authentication protects against.
> that’s not what service-level multi-factor authentication protects against
I don't understand your point. This is exactly what multi-factor authentication protects against if you don't store your MFA codes in your password manager.
I don't understand your point. This is exactly what multi-factor authentication protects against if you don't store your MFA codes in your password manager.
A password may be compromised via other routes than just through a password manager hijack, which is probably far down the probability scale of all of the possible ways to do so
Except you're still protected whenever a website gets breached and all their passwords are dumped. Sure it's still a single point of failure but at least it's with a company dedicated to password security.
how?
standard TOTP MFA (which is what most password managers would offer in terms of MFA) uses a shared secret, which you would just dump from the same database you get the dumped passwords from.
unless you use asymmetric crypto e.g. in webauthn this doesn't benefit you at all.
standard TOTP MFA (which is what most password managers would offer in terms of MFA) uses a shared secret, which you would just dump from the same database you get the dumped passwords from.
unless you use asymmetric crypto e.g. in webauthn this doesn't benefit you at all.
Except that the seed for the TOTP is unique to each website, because the website generates it, as opposed to an user-supplied password that might get reused across website. The impact is limited to the already compromised website, which is pretty darn good.
This is why you need to start with a threat model. For example, if your concern is password reuse or weak passwords simply using a password manager to have unique per-site passwords solves that problem for almost anyone.
If your concern is phishing, storing the code on the device (especially on a modern phone) is really moot since all forms of one-time codes are vulnerable — you should be working on how to switch to FIDO2/WebAuthn.
If your concern is a temporary exploit of the user's browser, using an out-of-process password manager is likely to prevent exfiltration of the entire password list but in practice this is already probably a disaster scenario unless you're using sites which require a strong FIDO2 challenge for sensitive operations since the attacker already has your cookies for everything you use regularly.
If your concern is phishing, storing the code on the device (especially on a modern phone) is really moot since all forms of one-time codes are vulnerable — you should be working on how to switch to FIDO2/WebAuthn.
If your concern is a temporary exploit of the user's browser, using an out-of-process password manager is likely to prevent exfiltration of the entire password list but in practice this is already probably a disaster scenario unless you're using sites which require a strong FIDO2 challenge for sensitive operations since the attacker already has your cookies for everything you use regularly.
Microsoft Authenticator - syncs your codes to the Cloud so you can pull them elsewhere (which your phone is out of action.)
Last time I tried that I still had to reactivate all the accounts.
Storing them in Bitwarden is more convenient by far, but storing TOTP is a paid feature.
Storing them in Bitwarden is more convenient by far, but storing TOTP is a paid feature.
I use 1Password, but I'm not sure storing the OTP next to the password is a good idea?
The idea is that you protect your password vault with 2FA and a strong password.
It slightly raises the risk in the scenario where your password vault gets hacked, but like with putting all your passwords in the same place, if you've only got 1 place to protect it becomes easier to protect it more thoroughly.
It slightly raises the risk in the scenario where your password vault gets hacked, but like with putting all your passwords in the same place, if you've only got 1 place to protect it becomes easier to protect it more thoroughly.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose to a degree?
Microsoft thinks it is fine for most user's threat models because these use two stacked layers of encryption: your Microsoft account and either Apple's cloud backup encryptions or Google's. To move these codes between devices you have to login in both your Microsoft account and also your Apple or Google account in quick succession. I know on Apple devices it works in the same (iCloud) backup layer that disables other device keys so doing this on a new device will "break" access on the previous device (only one device at a time has access). (I'm not sure about Google's ecosystem.) You can't easily switch ecosystems with this. Microsoft seems to think it unlikely enough that both your Microsoft account and your device ecosystem account will be compromised at the same time that there is enough security in this depth.
I use MS authenticator, and had the same thought.
I came to grips with the idea that I really don't care all that much if a single factor has risks as long as the other factors have orthogonal lists.
I came to grips with the idea that I really don't care all that much if a single factor has risks as long as the other factors have orthogonal lists.
There needs to be a way to sync everywhere except the device you're connecting from
Here's what that's like with WebAuthn:
1. Use my Yubikey with a different phone via NFC or a different computer using USB 2. Login using my other iPhone or Mac because the WebAuthn passkey is synced via iCloud (this is in the progress of coming to Chrome & Windows)
The nice thing is that all of those are more convenient than using email in addition to being more secure.
1. Use my Yubikey with a different phone via NFC or a different computer using USB 2. Login using my other iPhone or Mac because the WebAuthn passkey is synced via iCloud (this is in the progress of coming to Chrome & Windows)
The nice thing is that all of those are more convenient than using email in addition to being more secure.
[deleted]
Does your email not use MFA? So the choice not between magic links or MFA, it's between magic links and MFA or just MFA?
I'm mildly surprised that one of your complaints is that these fill your email. It seems simple enough to delete them?
Once I click the link, it takes me away from my email inbox. That means I have to go back and clean them up later. That's extra work for something that should be ephemeral. No thanks.
I can't quite put my finger on why it's different from having SMS 2FA codes in my Signal inbox, but it feels like more clutter.
I can't quite put my finger on why it's different from having SMS 2FA codes in my Signal inbox, but it feels like more clutter.
SMS clutter is worse for me. Harder to delete in bulk.
My SMS inbox is almost entirely login codes and other automated stuff so I'm quite happy just to leave it all there
Ditto my non-work email, really. Humans are in chat apps. Text, email, phone—overrun by transactional messages from computers, and spam.
Gmail app buries delete in a couple places in favor of archive. I routinely find I need to open a message to delete it, although the notification has an "archive" quick action button. Gmail made delete extra steps.
I have virtually unlimited space for email, but they still show up in searches, and I'm certain I'll never want to look at them again.
I have virtually unlimited space for email, but they still show up in searches, and I'm certain I'll never want to look at them again.
Just hit "#". That wasn't buried very deep.
The comment is about the mobile app.
I also hate them, my email is slow and mobile internet is almost non-existent at my house, so now I am waiting for an email to arrive in my inbox before I can login, or I am waving my phone around trying to get reception to receive a code.
I'm sure I am not the only one with those issues. As said above, this would all be fine if Magic Link was an option rather than the only way to sign in.
I'm sure I am not the only one with those issues. As said above, this would all be fine if Magic Link was an option rather than the only way to sign in.
The problem is that most users still don’t have password managers and actually magic links are more secure for them because they’re not vulnerable to password stuffing.
It would be really interesting if 1Password or another could have an "email client" that just looks for these codes/links the same way iOS/macOS look for messages 2FA codes
Yeah this is a huge turn off when using Notion especially.
They should be the default because they are more secure than a password plus a email password reset.
There's a near-infinite amount of not-so-small gotchas when implementing magic links:
- If magic links are the only way to sign in, authentication success rate is now directly tied to your email deliverability rate.
- Single-use tokens (immediately expiring after clicking) can be followed by spam filters, and thus immediately become invalid for the actual user trying to sign in.
- MTAs using greylisting can cause unexpected delays in email delivery.
- If a session audit trail is implemented, malware scanners following links might cause sessions from unexpected locations showing up.
etc.
- If magic links are the only way to sign in, authentication success rate is now directly tied to your email deliverability rate.
- Single-use tokens (immediately expiring after clicking) can be followed by spam filters, and thus immediately become invalid for the actual user trying to sign in.
- MTAs using greylisting can cause unexpected delays in email delivery.
- If a session audit trail is implemented, malware scanners following links might cause sessions from unexpected locations showing up.
etc.
Also, they only work if I have an e-mail client on the device I'm trying to log in from. Otherwise having to transfer this link becomes a burden.
Additionally, even if I do have the e-mail on my device, clicking the link on mobile often opens it up inside some alternative web-view. Thus the session is tied to my e-mail client, not my actual browser.
Additionally, even if I do have the e-mail on my device, clicking the link on mobile often opens it up inside some alternative web-view. Thus the session is tied to my e-mail client, not my actual browser.
This wouldn't be a problem if the Magic Link was used only to authenticate your original login session, and not to start a new session wherever it was opened. Like I mention here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081608
Great points! The deliverability (and delay) issue is the one I’ve found most challenging. For the others, here are some mitigations I’ve come across:
- instead of single use tokens, set them to expire within 60 mins
- to prevent spam/malware checkers signing in when following the links, have the magic link take you to a page with a sign in button to ‘complete’ the sign in process. And, optionally, add some JS that clicks it for you on page load. This is the same approach used for unsubscribe links.
- instead of single use tokens, set them to expire within 60 mins
- to prevent spam/malware checkers signing in when following the links, have the magic link take you to a page with a sign in button to ‘complete’ the sign in process. And, optionally, add some JS that clicks it for you on page load. This is the same approach used for unsubscribe links.
Magic links are great for low trust model applications where the user is required to use the app but is a limited stakeholder.
Case in point: SportSignUp, which is a platform/app that allows you to manage your little league/basketball/soccer team, etc.
The use cases for parents are basically figuring out where games/practices are, telling coaches that they will be/not be there, checking scores, and signing up to volunteer for various tasks.
Life is complex. You have non-custodial parents, nannys, older siblings, etc helping out. The easiest path is to send the magic link to the family text group.
Case in point: SportSignUp, which is a platform/app that allows you to manage your little league/basketball/soccer team, etc.
The use cases for parents are basically figuring out where games/practices are, telling coaches that they will be/not be there, checking scores, and signing up to volunteer for various tasks.
Life is complex. You have non-custodial parents, nannys, older siblings, etc helping out. The easiest path is to send the magic link to the family text group.
Another relatively new problem with magic links specifically on mobile is that your email client will likely open the link in an embedded browser which is typically isolated from the main browser app and doesn't share the cookies with it.
There are some workarounds for this but they don't seem very secure, plus they add some complexity. E.g. once the backend validates the magic link click, it logs the user in also in the browser that initiated the email send. I think a sort of a phishing attack is possible here. Also the page that initiated it should periodically refresh itself to see if the session was validated somewhere else.
I haven't been able to find any more secure or simpler solutions to this problem. Any thoughts?
There are some workarounds for this but they don't seem very secure, plus they add some complexity. E.g. once the backend validates the magic link click, it logs the user in also in the browser that initiated the email send. I think a sort of a phishing attack is possible here. Also the page that initiated it should periodically refresh itself to see if the session was validated somewhere else.
I haven't been able to find any more secure or simpler solutions to this problem. Any thoughts?
The way I've implemented in one of my own projects [1] but that I'm not fully happy with (and the way that Amazon.com does it) is to do what you suggest: create a record on the backend when the login attempt begins and have your frontend keep checking that record until there is a result like email verified/not-verified/timed-out. When the user clicks the magic link in the email, update that record with their choice to approve or reject the login, or ultimately time out and invalidate the login attempt. This avoids the separate cookie jar problem.
The phishing scenario is a real one, though. People have been conditioned to click Yes on everything. Coinbase's magic links implementation, for example, requires you to click the magic link in the same browser session that initiated the login. This is a bit more secure, although annoying from a UX perspective if you're in an embedded WebView like you mentioned.
The middle ground is something like instead of sending a link, send a code via email that you enter on the website, but that just removes the magic of magic links and is no different than what it was before!
[1] https://loginwith.xyz
The phishing scenario is a real one, though. People have been conditioned to click Yes on everything. Coinbase's magic links implementation, for example, requires you to click the magic link in the same browser session that initiated the login. This is a bit more secure, although annoying from a UX perspective if you're in an embedded WebView like you mentioned.
The middle ground is something like instead of sending a link, send a code via email that you enter on the website, but that just removes the magic of magic links and is no different than what it was before!
[1] https://loginwith.xyz
> The middle ground is something like instead of sending a link, send a code via email that you enter on the website, but that just removes the magic of magic links and is no different than what it was before!
Wouldn't an even better middle ground option be defaulting to magic links, with the magic link destination both logging in and notifying the user that if they user want to switch [back] to a different web browser or device they can use their email and $TIMELIMITEDCODE? (Perhaps with the notification disabled if the browser which opens the magic link shares a cookie jar with the browser session which requested the magic link, and perhaps including a "You recently tried to access using $RequestOriginatingBrowserName on $DeviceID" to hint they might want to get out of their mail client)
Offers both the magic bit and a non-magic way to escape from the sandbox that is less likely to be a vector for speculative phishing attacks.
Wouldn't an even better middle ground option be defaulting to magic links, with the magic link destination both logging in and notifying the user that if they user want to switch [back] to a different web browser or device they can use their email and $TIMELIMITEDCODE? (Perhaps with the notification disabled if the browser which opens the magic link shares a cookie jar with the browser session which requested the magic link, and perhaps including a "You recently tried to access using $RequestOriginatingBrowserName on $DeviceID" to hint they might want to get out of their mail client)
Offers both the magic bit and a non-magic way to escape from the sandbox that is less likely to be a vector for speculative phishing attacks.
> Also the page that initiated it should periodically refresh itself to see if the session was validated somewhere else.
I guess the link must be disabled / invalidated after first use and your auth server and client obviously must verify if a given link is still valid.
I guess the link must be disabled / invalidated after first use and your auth server and client obviously must verify if a given link is still valid.
Of course the link should be invalidated, but that doesn't protect from a situation where an attacker initiates a login, then the user receives an email and clicks. The chances are slim but some people might get confused and click without much thinking - and voila, the attacker has a valid session.
Simply opening a Magic Link doesn't have to authenticate the initiating login. The user can be asked to interact with the page, being shown the source of the link (time, browser, device, IP/Region, etc.), to authenticate the login. This adds a little bit of friction to legitimate cases, but then again having to open your email and find a link and click it is already plenty of friction that this additional step can be considered a negligible addition to that.
> Email Security: ...Should someone gain access to another user's inbox, they simultaneously receive the keys to logging into profiles that run on magic links. Therefore, a single cyber-attack on your email could lead to unwanted activity on many of your utilized virtual services
This statement only partially covers the problem.
I once had a cofounder leave my company on bad terms. He had access to the bank accounts, I had email admin.
It took me 5 seconds to get full bank account access and lock him out with access to his email ("forgot password").
It's astounding how much of a skeleton key our inbox has become. This community doesn't need reminding, but our families do.
This statement only partially covers the problem.
I once had a cofounder leave my company on bad terms. He had access to the bank accounts, I had email admin.
It took me 5 seconds to get full bank account access and lock him out with access to his email ("forgot password").
It's astounding how much of a skeleton key our inbox has become. This community doesn't need reminding, but our families do.
I hope you do not use banks that use just email for authentication anymore. Horribly insecure.
What bank due you use that's MFA key only, with no easy fallbacks?
Another issue that I don't see covered here is that some email clients (looking at you, Outlook) pre-fetch links to see if they are security risks. If you build a magic link system which handles plain old GETs, the one time code gets used up before the user can actually log in.
We ran into this at FusionAuth and had to do implement some workarounds, documented here: https://github.com/FusionAuth/fusionauth-issues/issues/629#i...
Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081192 mentions this and some other issues.
We ran into this at FusionAuth and had to do implement some workarounds, documented here: https://github.com/FusionAuth/fusionauth-issues/issues/629#i...
Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081192 mentions this and some other issues.
I always say this to CISO-types: FusionAuth SimplePass is the real magic, not magic links; https://fusionauth.io/blog/2021/04/01/fusionauth-introduces-... elegant and yet zero attack vec
Article fails to mention that "Magic Links" are not only possible via email, but any out-of-band method, so you could use Whatsapp, Telegram or IRC even. Obviously, the user is assumed to have a secure setup regarding whatever method you send the link via.
Which the "Email Security" section kind of hints to as well, that it's important users have a secure email setup. What they fail to mention, is that this is important not only if you use "Magic Links" but also if you have username+password login with "Reset my password" functionality, as otherwise intruders will be able to change your password anyways.
In conclusion, the article seems to have been written with the goal of saying "Everyone is using Magic Links, how can we get them to use Zitadel (their product) instead?", rather than an honest look on how "Magic Links" can be made more secure.
Which the "Email Security" section kind of hints to as well, that it's important users have a secure email setup. What they fail to mention, is that this is important not only if you use "Magic Links" but also if you have username+password login with "Reset my password" functionality, as otherwise intruders will be able to change your password anyways.
In conclusion, the article seems to have been written with the goal of saying "Everyone is using Magic Links, how can we get them to use Zitadel (their product) instead?", rather than an honest look on how "Magic Links" can be made more secure.
> "honest look on how "Magic Links" can be made more secure"
Challenge accepted. Here's my best practice list. (I should put this into a blog post!)
* Prefer them for accounts that are infrequently used or low risk.
* Test for conversion or goal uplift if possible with this.
* Offer the user choices; some people will prefer username/password, some magic link, some social sign-on.
* Ensure that users understand that whatever the destination is (email, whatsapp, slack, etc), the security of their app account is now tied to the destination's security. Understand that most folks care far more about their email or other destination than they do about access to your app.
* Understand the UX tradeoffs (around mobile browser issues). Document them if possible
* Make sure everything is over HTTPS. (Duh :) ).
* Set timeouts for links appropriately and communicate that to your users. ("This link is good for X minutes." "This link expires at HH:MM.")
* Warn users that access to the link is the same as access to the account. "Don't forward this email".
I think that's everything I'd say. I would love to hear if I missed something.
Challenge accepted. Here's my best practice list. (I should put this into a blog post!)
* Prefer them for accounts that are infrequently used or low risk.
* Test for conversion or goal uplift if possible with this.
* Offer the user choices; some people will prefer username/password, some magic link, some social sign-on.
* Ensure that users understand that whatever the destination is (email, whatsapp, slack, etc), the security of their app account is now tied to the destination's security. Understand that most folks care far more about their email or other destination than they do about access to your app.
* Understand the UX tradeoffs (around mobile browser issues). Document them if possible
* Make sure everything is over HTTPS. (Duh :) ).
* Set timeouts for links appropriately and communicate that to your users. ("This link is good for X minutes." "This link expires at HH:MM.")
* Warn users that access to the link is the same as access to the account. "Don't forward this email".
I think that's everything I'd say. I would love to hear if I missed something.
Great, now I'm going to spend the evening designing a login system that uses IRC private messages to deliver a magic link (or something, maybe ask for TOTP via the IRC chat?) for fun.
How should an honest look at the topic include for your, that's lacking in the article? You mentioned the focus on email instead of other channels. Anything else? Thanks for the feedback.
One of my healthcare providers uses this and I abhor it. With their website I can see appointments, billing, etc., but instead of simply going to the website and logging in with 1Password, I have to go to the website, enter my email and click log in, switch to my email and wait for the email, open the email and click the link which takes me back to my browser.
It drives me nuts.
It drives me nuts.
It is strange to me that both this article and commenters in this thread complain about "email security" as being a limitation of magic links, given that the vast majority of password authentication websites allow an email-based password reset flow. Magic links aren't any more or less secure than allowing email-based password reset.
I use Magic Links because I don't trust the security of my hobby app and don't want to deal with storing credentials.
What I would like is a service like Firebase or OAuth but that I communicate with through my backend. So a user sends in username/password to my server and I relay that to a service which returns a token or something. I've had too many issues with the Firebase front-end JS that I no longer trust it to handle the whole flow.
Anyone know a service like that? Basically just an API that is specialized in auth/security that I can outsource the data to without having to store it myself.
What I would like is a service like Firebase or OAuth but that I communicate with through my backend. So a user sends in username/password to my server and I relay that to a service which returns a token or something. I've had too many issues with the Firebase front-end JS that I no longer trust it to handle the whole flow.
Anyone know a service like that? Basically just an API that is specialized in auth/security that I can outsource the data to without having to store it myself.
Auth0 via Universal Login essentially fixes the crappy frontend JS problem, JS-free login page driven by an HTML template that you redirect to and get back a code
There's also "dbconnections" endpoints where you can post raw sign-up data though if you're looking strictly for the backend piece
There's also "dbconnections" endpoints where you can post raw sign-up data though if you're looking strictly for the backend piece
I haven't used it in a while, but it sounds like Auth0 [https://auth0.com/] is what you're looking for.
>Though no official record of the first use of this method seems to exist, research suggests that their concept dates to the early 2010s.
Early 2010s? Craigslist has been doing this since the 90s.
Early 2010s? Craigslist has been doing this since the 90s.
Somewhat related:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31892299
This is very, very concerning and makes “magic links” a security threat to any platform that utilizes them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31892299
This is very, very concerning and makes “magic links” a security threat to any platform that utilizes them.
I wrote a Rails plugin for magic links at https://github.com/rocketshipio/nopassword that doesn’t suffer from many of the problems I’m seeing in the comments.
The big thing is I only use a 6 digit numerical code that people have to copy and paste or type into the browser which they’re authenticating. I looked at stuffing a token into a URL, but it’s not a good idea because the email client may try opening the link to preview it or it may try opening the link in the wrong app/browser, such as an in-app browser.
That may sound super insecure, but the 6 digit code is half the secret that’s needed to authenticate. The browser that the person is using to login has a much longer complex secret that must be included with the code. Additionally, this combination must be authenticated within a set number of attempts, 3 by default, within a certain timeframe, 5 minutes by default.
My motivations for creating this, instead of using something like devise with passwords, is because I have seen soooooo many non-technical people get tripped up by passwords. I know there’s sign-in with Google, MS, etc. via OAuth, but I wanted to give people a way to login to web applications without being under the watchful eye of big tech.
I’m currently using it in production for all of my Rails apps, like https://legiblenews.com/email_authentication/new
A better description of why and how it works at https://github.com/rocketshipio/nopassword
The big thing is I only use a 6 digit numerical code that people have to copy and paste or type into the browser which they’re authenticating. I looked at stuffing a token into a URL, but it’s not a good idea because the email client may try opening the link to preview it or it may try opening the link in the wrong app/browser, such as an in-app browser.
That may sound super insecure, but the 6 digit code is half the secret that’s needed to authenticate. The browser that the person is using to login has a much longer complex secret that must be included with the code. Additionally, this combination must be authenticated within a set number of attempts, 3 by default, within a certain timeframe, 5 minutes by default.
My motivations for creating this, instead of using something like devise with passwords, is because I have seen soooooo many non-technical people get tripped up by passwords. I know there’s sign-in with Google, MS, etc. via OAuth, but I wanted to give people a way to login to web applications without being under the watchful eye of big tech.
I’m currently using it in production for all of my Rails apps, like https://legiblenews.com/email_authentication/new
A better description of why and how it works at https://github.com/rocketshipio/nopassword
So if I have 700k usernames I can pwn one of them with 50% probability. Cool!
With 3 attempts allowed I only need 230k usernames, even better!
The "secret" stored in the browser doesn't protect you from this, since I'm not stealing someone's code; I'm logging in from my own browser. (Of course I'm doing this via a botnet, so you won't notice it by IP address)
With 3 attempts allowed I only need 230k usernames, even better!
The "secret" stored in the browser doesn't protect you from this, since I'm not stealing someone's code; I'm logging in from my own browser. (Of course I'm doing this via a botnet, so you won't notice it by IP address)
I'm pretty sure you are missing how they implementing this. It sounds like at time of the request to send the code the browser either generates and sends to the server (or gets from the server) a longer/more-complicated secret. Both that secret (which is probably account-specific, the one you requested login to) and the 6 digit code are required. You can't just guess the code, the code has to be combined with another account-specific token.
By regenerating longer token each time a 6-digit token is required and only allowing something like 3 guesses per longer token (Before regenerating and sending a new 6-digit code) you have a secure system.
By regenerating longer token each time a 6-digit token is required and only allowing something like 3 guesses per longer token (Before regenerating and sending a new 6-digit code) you have a secure system.
No, actually I'm pretty sure you are missing why their system is insecure.
But sure, let me explain it:
Step 1: acquire a list of 230 000 usernames/emails.
Step 2: for each username/email, launch a browser and request a login code. The login code is sent to the users' email address, and the super-ultra-secret token is stored in the browser.
Step 3: for each username/email, do 3 random guesses from their respective browsers.
Each guess is a Bernoulli trial with P = 10^-6. Thus the probability of at least one success is 1 - (1 - 10^-6)^(230000 * 3) = 49.8%
I hope this made it clear for you. I think the fallacy in your reasoning was assuming that only legitimate users can get the "secret" token, which is false. It is true for things like debit cards, where the token is stored on the card itself, hence the 4-digit PIN with 3 tries allowed is sufficient. In this case however a "secret" token is handed out to anyone who requests a code. It protects you from someone peeking into your mailbox and stealing your code, but it fails against brute forcing codes on a large number of users.
But sure, let me explain it:
Step 1: acquire a list of 230 000 usernames/emails.
Step 2: for each username/email, launch a browser and request a login code. The login code is sent to the users' email address, and the super-ultra-secret token is stored in the browser.
Step 3: for each username/email, do 3 random guesses from their respective browsers.
Each guess is a Bernoulli trial with P = 10^-6. Thus the probability of at least one success is 1 - (1 - 10^-6)^(230000 * 3) = 49.8%
I hope this made it clear for you. I think the fallacy in your reasoning was assuming that only legitimate users can get the "secret" token, which is false. It is true for things like debit cards, where the token is stored on the card itself, hence the 4-digit PIN with 3 tries allowed is sufficient. In this case however a "secret" token is handed out to anyone who requests a code. It protects you from someone peeking into your mailbox and stealing your code, but it fails against brute forcing codes on a large number of users.
You're over complicating this. In fact it might provide a similar kind of protection the physical chip provides for debit cards. Let me explain:
1. Someone (anyone) initiates the login flow
2. The user record in a DB gets enriched with
- the 6-digit OTP (sent via email)
- the "secret" (shared with the initiating browser)
- the current session failed attempts counter (default: 0, max: 3)
- the total failed attempts counter since last successful login (default: 0, max: 20)
Let's assume that you've initiated the session (hence own the "secret"), but have no access to the OTP - you will always have 3 attempts to guess the OTP before the session gets reset (a new "secret" + new OTP). So after the 3rd unsuccessful attempt you start from scratch. And at that point other means of protection might come into play based on the second counter (throttling the auth. requests on the WAF/fronting server, blacklisting IP addresses, etc.)
The number of accounts you're targeting does not matter - in fact it may help other systems mentioned catch your malicious attempts sooner.
1. Someone (anyone) initiates the login flow
2. The user record in a DB gets enriched with
- the 6-digit OTP (sent via email)
- the "secret" (shared with the initiating browser)
- the current session failed attempts counter (default: 0, max: 3)
- the total failed attempts counter since last successful login (default: 0, max: 20)
Let's assume that you've initiated the session (hence own the "secret"), but have no access to the OTP - you will always have 3 attempts to guess the OTP before the session gets reset (a new "secret" + new OTP). So after the 3rd unsuccessful attempt you start from scratch. And at that point other means of protection might come into play based on the second counter (throttling the auth. requests on the WAF/fronting server, blacklisting IP addresses, etc.)
The number of accounts you're targeting does not matter - in fact it may help other systems mentioned catch your malicious attempts sooner.
>In fact it might provide a similar kind of protection the physical chip provides for debit cards. Let me explain:
You didn’t explain how this gives you any protection akin to a physical chip on a debit card…
Let me illuminate the problem with a real-world analogy: this system is like me walking into a bank with a list of account names, and the bank issuing me debit cards for those accounts with random PIN codes, no questions asked. I’d have 3 attempts to guess the PIN, then the ATM swallows the card. Same as in OPs login system!
Still, don’t you think banks would be silly to do this?
>So after the 3rd unsuccessful attempt you start from scratch.
You don’t start from scratch. You do 3 attempts per user, period.
>The number of accounts you're targeting does not matter
It does matter. The entropy of their six-digit OTP is small enough that pwning at least one account from a pool of users is feasible. As I’ve shown above, the number of users necessary for pwning at least one account with 50% probability is log(0.5)/log((1 - 10^-[digits])^[attempts per user]). In our case digits = 6, and attempts per user = 3, which gives us ~231000 users. Which isn’t too many for a website.
You didn’t explain how this gives you any protection akin to a physical chip on a debit card…
Let me illuminate the problem with a real-world analogy: this system is like me walking into a bank with a list of account names, and the bank issuing me debit cards for those accounts with random PIN codes, no questions asked. I’d have 3 attempts to guess the PIN, then the ATM swallows the card. Same as in OPs login system!
Still, don’t you think banks would be silly to do this?
>So after the 3rd unsuccessful attempt you start from scratch.
You don’t start from scratch. You do 3 attempts per user, period.
>The number of accounts you're targeting does not matter
It does matter. The entropy of their six-digit OTP is small enough that pwning at least one account from a pool of users is feasible. As I’ve shown above, the number of users necessary for pwning at least one account with 50% probability is log(0.5)/log((1 - 10^-[digits])^[attempts per user]). In our case digits = 6, and attempts per user = 3, which gives us ~231000 users. Which isn’t too many for a website.
> You didn’t explain how this gives you any protection akin to a physical chip on a debit card…
In both cases you (an admin) control how many attempts you wish to accept before sacrificing the usability over security (temporarily disabling the card and forcing you to call the bank and disabling 6-digits OTP in favour of ie. 12-digits OTP).
Your real-world analogy is, this time, too simplified :) Let me counter-argument with my example:
You are in a a possession of 1 million user emails and request OTPs for all of them (let's assume no other security measures are in place). If you hit all of the 1M records with 3 attempts of OTP - according to my simple experiment - you might hit (on avg) 3.18 accounts.
Of course, in real life, your attack would be mitigated on other (non-application) level.
Please find my ugly code for that experiment: https://pastebin.com/S2ufabhU
PS. When OTP size is increased to 7 digits - the avg account hit drops to 0.33. For 8 digits - it drops to 0.02. (please mind I'm using lousy RNG :)
PS2. What I'm trying to emphasize is that there's nothing wrong with OTP-auth like this if properly implemented with other basic anti-bruteforce techniques. You could get "better" results with simple password spraying.
In both cases you (an admin) control how many attempts you wish to accept before sacrificing the usability over security (temporarily disabling the card and forcing you to call the bank and disabling 6-digits OTP in favour of ie. 12-digits OTP).
Your real-world analogy is, this time, too simplified :) Let me counter-argument with my example:
You are in a a possession of 1 million user emails and request OTPs for all of them (let's assume no other security measures are in place). If you hit all of the 1M records with 3 attempts of OTP - according to my simple experiment - you might hit (on avg) 3.18 accounts.
Of course, in real life, your attack would be mitigated on other (non-application) level.
Please find my ugly code for that experiment: https://pastebin.com/S2ufabhU
PS. When OTP size is increased to 7 digits - the avg account hit drops to 0.33. For 8 digits - it drops to 0.02. (please mind I'm using lousy RNG :)
PS2. What I'm trying to emphasize is that there's nothing wrong with OTP-auth like this if properly implemented with other basic anti-bruteforce techniques. You could get "better" results with simple password spraying.
So you actually agree with me.
1. I don’t have any problem with OTP-based magic links, if they’re implemented carefully. As you’ve just demonstrated, a 6-digit OTP with 3 retries allowed is not sufficient at scale.
2. I’ve also demonstrated that OP’s proposal to augment the 6-digit code with a “secret” token gives you no additional security. It can only protect against someone peeking over your shoulder to snatch your OTP.
3. As you’ve just demonstrated, increasing the OTP length will mitigate the problem, as it increases entropy. For peace of mind, I’d recommend 64 bits of entropy, which can be achieved with a 13-letter alphanumeric code (case insensitive), or with 5 words from a dictionary of 10 000.
1. I don’t have any problem with OTP-based magic links, if they’re implemented carefully. As you’ve just demonstrated, a 6-digit OTP with 3 retries allowed is not sufficient at scale.
2. I’ve also demonstrated that OP’s proposal to augment the 6-digit code with a “secret” token gives you no additional security. It can only protect against someone peeking over your shoulder to snatch your OTP.
3. As you’ve just demonstrated, increasing the OTP length will mitigate the problem, as it increases entropy. For peace of mind, I’d recommend 64 bits of entropy, which can be achieved with a 13-letter alphanumeric code (case insensitive), or with 5 words from a dictionary of 10 000.
Seems like it :) but I would be more pragmatic and didn't bash the system for the reasons you brought up :)
ad 1 - IMO, it's still sufficient at scale with some basic infra. hardening
ad 2 - AFAIK the "secret" was never meant to protect from brute-force, but rather mitigate threats from actors controlling the email part
ad 3 - again, let's be more pragmatic - no one would use it if it required typing 13-letters OTP :) there are other ways to mitigate the potential attack you've described.
Best.
ad 1 - IMO, it's still sufficient at scale with some basic infra. hardening
ad 2 - AFAIK the "secret" was never meant to protect from brute-force, but rather mitigate threats from actors controlling the email part
ad 3 - again, let's be more pragmatic - no one would use it if it required typing 13-letters OTP :) there are other ways to mitigate the potential attack you've described.
Best.
OP here… this was a great thread. Here’s a few takeaways, which you may not like, but I think are worth writing out.
1. This def needs hardening. I currently only use it for really low stakes stuff. I need to make that clearer in the README.
2. The next level of hardening I was planning on implementing is rate limiting code requests per email address. I figure I can step up the time-outs between code requests pretty aggressively to slow down brute forcing the code. The ATM that eats the card is a great analogy.
3. Maybe I missed it in the thread, but nobody mentioned that this from of auth makes it evident to the persons being attacked that something is happening if they have a bajillion code requests in their email inbox. There’s a lot of other problems that creates for these auth scheme, like filling a users inbox beyond its quota, triggering high volume breakers for SMTP relay services like AWS SES, etc. that wouldn’t be good.
For those watching, if you’re a security researcher feel free to open a GitHub issue on that repo and I’ll address it.
1. This def needs hardening. I currently only use it for really low stakes stuff. I need to make that clearer in the README.
2. The next level of hardening I was planning on implementing is rate limiting code requests per email address. I figure I can step up the time-outs between code requests pretty aggressively to slow down brute forcing the code. The ATM that eats the card is a great analogy.
3. Maybe I missed it in the thread, but nobody mentioned that this from of auth makes it evident to the persons being attacked that something is happening if they have a bajillion code requests in their email inbox. There’s a lot of other problems that creates for these auth scheme, like filling a users inbox beyond its quota, triggering high volume breakers for SMTP relay services like AWS SES, etc. that wouldn’t be good.
For those watching, if you’re a security researcher feel free to open a GitHub issue on that repo and I’ll address it.
With passwords you will get even higher probability if you just try 100 most popular passwords allowed by the service on hundreds of thousands of users.
Try making password creation too difficult and now password reset will be the default authentication for a lot of users anyway.
Try making password creation too difficult and now password reset will be the default authentication for a lot of users anyway.
The 100 most popular passwords should already be blacklisted during registration, so it wouldn't be possible to set them as your password.
I have nothing against password-reset-as-authentication aka "magic links", when done properly. And by properly I mean not using an ultra-low entropy auth code, like the parent is proposing (6 decimal digits, aka 20 bits of entropy).
I have nothing against password-reset-as-authentication aka "magic links", when done properly. And by properly I mean not using an ultra-low entropy auth code, like the parent is proposing (6 decimal digits, aka 20 bits of entropy).
You should take this nopassword repo down. It's a good example of why you shouldn't "roll your own" in InfoSec, and it would honestly make me skeptical of any of your other security work. It looks like you may not be using it for anything sensitive, but I'm worried that someone else might try to.
As an alternative, there are many hosted services (e.g. Auth0) that are well-regarded, and I'm sure there are some self-hosted options. There seems to be at least one way to do magic links on top of Keyclock[1].
1. https://github.com/p2-inc/keycloak-magic-link
As an alternative, there are many hosted services (e.g. Auth0) that are well-regarded, and I'm sure there are some self-hosted options. There seems to be at least one way to do magic links on top of Keyclock[1].
1. https://github.com/p2-inc/keycloak-magic-link
Yep. Promoting shit like this on a public forum is borderline malicious.
[deleted]
The magic link is basically using "forgot my password" e-mail recovery flow to just friggin' log in.
If you've served the user a link which takes them to a session where they can change their password, that session must be authenticated, by definition; you would not allow an unauthenticated visitor to change an account password!
And so, if that password change session is authenticated, then just treat that as fully fledged session. Don't force the user to go back to the login screen and use their new password.
The next logical step after not forcing the user use their newly minted password is to just remind the user their forgotten password is still in effect, and that they can change it in their account profile settings.
From there to "magic link" authentication is just some minor UI tweaking.
I've always thought that asking the user to log in with a newly set password was an incredibly poor and unnecessary user experience, which just amounted to punishing the user for having forgotten their password and to train the user to believe that password recovery is inconvenient and should be avoided.
If you've served the user a link which takes them to a session where they can change their password, that session must be authenticated, by definition; you would not allow an unauthenticated visitor to change an account password!
And so, if that password change session is authenticated, then just treat that as fully fledged session. Don't force the user to go back to the login screen and use their new password.
The next logical step after not forcing the user use their newly minted password is to just remind the user their forgotten password is still in effect, and that they can change it in their account profile settings.
From there to "magic link" authentication is just some minor UI tweaking.
I've always thought that asking the user to log in with a newly set password was an incredibly poor and unnecessary user experience, which just amounted to punishing the user for having forgotten their password and to train the user to believe that password recovery is inconvenient and should be avoided.
Many of my accounts I use the password reset feature then enter a long and secure password and never store the password. Next time I log in I reset my password again.
Thus, if that password recovery continues to be a painful, multi-step process, rather than streamlined into an easy alternative login mechanism, those providers are basically not attuned to the way users are accessing the system.
"Opening an email and clicking on a link" is one of the most risky things you can do with your computer; it's a critical stage in many successful security breaches. Why would you train people to do it?
Are you serious?
I'm signing into a website, I get an email when I'm about to sign-in from said domain, I click the link in the email, I'm signed in.
What is this training me to do exactly?
I'm signing into a website, I get an email when I'm about to sign-in from said domain, I click the link in the email, I'm signed in.
What is this training me to do exactly?
Some third party detects you're trying to sign into a website. The third party sends you an email, that email happens to arrive first. You click the link in the email. Now you're on a website that looks like the one you expected (if the third party has done its homework) but is completely in control by the third party.
Apparently things like this do happen, for example when people are buying or selling things on the internet. They get redirected to a pay processing site that looks just like the one from their bank, but steals their money and/or identity instead.
Apparently things like this do happen, for example when people are buying or selling things on the internet. They get redirected to a pay processing site that looks just like the one from their bank, but steals their money and/or identity instead.
> Now you're on a website that looks like the one you expected (if the third party has done its homework) but is completely in control by the third party.
A simpler attack would be to for the third-party attempt a login on their end into your account, and if you happen to click on the Magic Link generated by their login attempt, you wouldn't be signing yourself in, but them.
A simpler attack would be to for the third-party attempt a login on their end into your account, and if you happen to click on the Magic Link generated by their login attempt, you wouldn't be signing yourself in, but them.
I'm not sure what actual security risk you're talking about here.
I click the magic link, expecting it to sign me in, but instead it takes me to a fake copy of the website which then asks (again) for login details?
I click the magic link, expecting it to sign me in, but instead it takes me to a fake copy of the website which then asks (again) for login details?
> but instead it takes me to a fake copy of the website ...
This is fine, but ...
> ... which then asks (again) for login details?
This is where the trick lies. The third-party copy doesn't have to ask you for login details. As your parent states: They get redirected to a pay processing site that looks just like the one from their bank, but steals their money and/or identity instead.
The fake site doesn't have to show you details of your account. It has to look just similar enough that enough people will think it's a legit payment site and submit their payment details.
----
There's also a simpler, alternative attack I mention in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081724
This is fine, but ...
> ... which then asks (again) for login details?
This is where the trick lies. The third-party copy doesn't have to ask you for login details. As your parent states: They get redirected to a pay processing site that looks just like the one from their bank, but steals their money and/or identity instead.
The fake site doesn't have to show you details of your account. It has to look just similar enough that enough people will think it's a legit payment site and submit their payment details.
----
There's also a simpler, alternative attack I mention in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081724
Yes, a lot of people will fall for that.
> Some third party detects you're trying to sign into a website.
And this third party can find out how, exactly?
And this third party can find out how, exactly?
Off the top of my head, even in HTTPS the domain name isn't encrypted, which may be enough to make a good guess.
Or possibly just guessing without evidence because the sending cost of junk email is so low — looking at my junk mail folders, I have reason to believe they guess.
FWIW, I've heard of this type of attack (deliberately timed) being used during house purchases, with a fake destination bank message preceding the real message by a few minutes. Does anyone know if that's real or just an urban legend?
Or possibly just guessing without evidence because the sending cost of junk email is so low — looking at my junk mail folders, I have reason to believe they guess.
FWIW, I've heard of this type of attack (deliberately timed) being used during house purchases, with a fake destination bank message preceding the real message by a few minutes. Does anyone know if that's real or just an urban legend?
Ah, like that you mean. Thanks. I was thinking of embedded third party code on a website (which might better not be included on sensitive pages).
"Not device-dependent" is a false assumption. They are entirely dependent on you having convenient access to your email on the device. I have yet to to encounter one that was smart enough to authorize my session on the original device if I open the link on a different device (and there are probably good security arguments for not doing that).
Even in the ideal scenario where I have a proper mail client, the alternative they present is:
auto-filled password from my PW manager: 1 click
magic link: click to initiate the login session (1); click to focus my email client (2); [wait for email client to launch if not already open]; click on the email (3); click the magic link (4) click to close the superfluous second browser tab (5); click BACK to my mail client (6); click to delete the now-useless email (7); click BACK AGAIN to my browser (8).
Hate these things.
Even in the ideal scenario where I have a proper mail client, the alternative they present is:
auto-filled password from my PW manager: 1 click
magic link: click to initiate the login session (1); click to focus my email client (2); [wait for email client to launch if not already open]; click on the email (3); click the magic link (4) click to close the superfluous second browser tab (5); click BACK to my mail client (6); click to delete the now-useless email (7); click BACK AGAIN to my browser (8).
Hate these things.
I wish there was a way to read all cookies of the current site and create a bookmarklet that sets them again.
So I could log into GitHub and save the cookies in a bookmarklet.
Then every time I want to use GitHub, I click the bookmarklet and it sets the cookies, so I am logged in.
I dabbled with the idea a bit, but it seems not straight forward. Maybe due to some metadata that cookies carry. They are not just key:value pairs.
For example here on HN, when I type "document.cookie" into the console, I get back an empty string.
So I could log into GitHub and save the cookies in a bookmarklet.
Then every time I want to use GitHub, I click the bookmarklet and it sets the cookies, so I am logged in.
I dabbled with the idea a bit, but it seems not straight forward. Maybe due to some metadata that cookies carry. They are not just key:value pairs.
For example here on HN, when I type "document.cookie" into the console, I get back an empty string.
That would not work for a number of reasons, the first one being the fact that virtually every service now uses HttpOnly cookies for session management (to make it harder for e.g. XSS injected code to steal sessions). In addition to that session cookies are usually rotated very frequently, with servers occasionally updating them even if you stay logged in; it goes without saying that if you log out and back in you will almost surely get a different session token each time.
You might be running into issues with session cookies and HttpOnly cookies: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Cookies#re...
They don’t seem that outdated to me, given the evidence presented. email provider security is a real problem but is usually considered the root of trust for persons…
Also a possible way for magic links to be secure even if email is compromised is for the requesting browser to create a secret client side so that only that browser can actually proceed with the magic link.
If the email is compromised, the hacker can just go to the front page in their own browser and generate a fresh login email, so there's no extra protection in client-side browser secrets.
It'd be ok, if there is (yet) another factor for doing this, e.g. SMS, time based tokens, and you'd need 2 of them to reset the 3rd. Cumbersome to put it mildly.
One of the first things I learned when I got onto the internet was that "consider (RFC822) emails to be postcards analogs, readable by anyone who stumbles over them, they are not like mail which hides its content in an envelope." That was in 1994. Shirts reading "I read your email" were popular with the IT guys up to until about ten years ago (and they are still being offered).
Email is an inherently insecure, non-trustworthy system. Considering it the "root of trust" sounds scary.
Email is an inherently insecure, non-trustworthy system. Considering it the "root of trust" sounds scary.
and yet, it is! for many webapps, and not long ago almosy all. pop someone’s email and suddenly you have access to gazillions of account recovery flows. despite email’s flaws, it’s the defacto decentralized user namespace and authorization fallback. in the case of modern email, t
only the sender, receiver, and a chain of usually-authenticated intermediates actually can see the contents of mail. it’s not completely plaintext anymore, i don’t think it’s as scary as you would think in 1994. and if modern email transports don’t count, then isn’t it true that _any_ messaging system could be considered as postcards in that whoever stumbles across the message contents can read it?
> if modern email transports don’t count, then isn’t it true that _any_ messaging system could be considered as postcards in that whoever stumbles across the message contents can read it?
You are mistaking transport layer "security" with information security. It's a common, yet potentially grave mistake.
Secure communication depends on encryption that is "good enough" so that unauthorised decryption takes too much resources or too much time to be practical, with the only encryption secrets being held by the sender and the receiver. We usually call that approach "End-to-end encryption", or E2EE. It is also something political entities try hard to ban, for obvious reasons, if you consider them mostly being suppressive-authoritarian surveillance state actors. (yes, I am aware of the '5 dollar hackwrench' xkcd comic [1]. If your state actor uses that tactic against you, you have a whole different problem).
True E2EE solutions for email exist, but - mostly because virtually no one wanted the extra hassle - they never got adopted widely.
In a perfect world, metadata would also be encrypted - or nonexistent at all (there are implementations for that, for example PGP-encrypted messages over bitstream over TOR (I know your 'bitstream address', but all messages get broadcast, e.g. via blockchain, to everyone, and you only pick out those that match your bitstream address. Because you have only your own private PGP key, you can't read the messages to other bitstream addresses, even though you have them).
[1] https://xkcd.com/538/
You are mistaking transport layer "security" with information security. It's a common, yet potentially grave mistake.
Secure communication depends on encryption that is "good enough" so that unauthorised decryption takes too much resources or too much time to be practical, with the only encryption secrets being held by the sender and the receiver. We usually call that approach "End-to-end encryption", or E2EE. It is also something political entities try hard to ban, for obvious reasons, if you consider them mostly being suppressive-authoritarian surveillance state actors. (yes, I am aware of the '5 dollar hackwrench' xkcd comic [1]. If your state actor uses that tactic against you, you have a whole different problem).
True E2EE solutions for email exist, but - mostly because virtually no one wanted the extra hassle - they never got adopted widely.
In a perfect world, metadata would also be encrypted - or nonexistent at all (there are implementations for that, for example PGP-encrypted messages over bitstream over TOR (I know your 'bitstream address', but all messages get broadcast, e.g. via blockchain, to everyone, and you only pick out those that match your bitstream address. Because you have only your own private PGP key, you can't read the messages to other bitstream addresses, even though you have them).
[1] https://xkcd.com/538/
That’s why I keep the harder-to-guess secret in the browser where the code request was initiated. If somebody read the code from your “postcard” and tried to enter it, they’d see an error and have to start over.
Problem I have with most password reset schemes is they put the secret token in a URL, which is visible to all by the postcard analogy.
Problem I have with most password reset schemes is they put the secret token in a URL, which is visible to all by the postcard analogy.
Fuck magic links. What a horrible login flow. Am I the only person taht doesn't have my email open in another tab?
My favorite is when a vacation or network change triggers what amounts to a cascade of security audits. Site A sends magic link to Email B, which in turn sends text to phone C but it never arrives, so everything times out. On the next go, Email B can be persuaded to send magic link to Email C which now wants a ubikey or password you haven't used in years. A simple login turns into an hour long slog -- with landmines!
So far, I have been careful enough, but it's only a matter of time until this bites me.
So far, I have been careful enough, but it's only a matter of time until this bites me.
> Am I the only person taht doesn't have my email open in another tab?
Magic links aren't targeted at the type of user you seem to be.
Most users of most products are: 1) on mobile devices, and 2) use a native email client.
They also don't have password managers, so magic links become a way to assume the security level of their personal email (which is what "forgot password" ends up doing anyway).
Magic links aren't targeted at the type of user you seem to be.
Most users of most products are: 1) on mobile devices, and 2) use a native email client.
They also don't have password managers, so magic links become a way to assume the security level of their personal email (which is what "forgot password" ends up doing anyway).
It doesn't matter. Crap like this makes the web worse. We cannot keep catering to people who refuse to learn better practices.
If the industry got itself together enough to start teaching people good internet hygiene we'd all be much better off. But instead we strip away OK security for horrible security, and inconvenience nearly everyone in the process.
If the industry got itself together enough to start teaching people good internet hygiene we'd all be much better off. But instead we strip away OK security for horrible security, and inconvenience nearly everyone in the process.
Magic links are better security than most people's use of passwords.
I can't count the number of people I know who reuse the same password on every site or just use terrible passwords. It took me years to get my dad and girlfriend on a password manager, and they're the only family I've succeeded with.
It's the same with privacy. I could never get anyone to leave Gmail. You can't sell people on a major "inconvenience" by telling them about a hypothetical security breach. It's just not human nature.
And even worse, the only good password manager that I've used is 1Password and it isn't free.
I can't count the number of people I know who reuse the same password on every site or just use terrible passwords. It took me years to get my dad and girlfriend on a password manager, and they're the only family I've succeeded with.
It's the same with privacy. I could never get anyone to leave Gmail. You can't sell people on a major "inconvenience" by telling them about a hypothetical security breach. It's just not human nature.
And even worse, the only good password manager that I've used is 1Password and it isn't free.
I've been thinking about magic links using QR codes rather then email.
EDIT: The idea here is that on a device where you're already logged in you generate a QR code, you photograph that code on another device, and then you confirm on the first device that it's really you who photographed the code on the other device.
EDIT: The idea here is that on a device where you're already logged in you generate a QR code, you photograph that code on another device, and then you confirm on the first device that it's really you who photographed the code on the other device.
I don't understand. What would the QR encode? Surely not the magic link itself, as that would defeat the purpose.
If the user's phone's browser knows a relevant secret (a pre-shared key or the private half of a key-pair the other side has the public half saved in), then the QR code is a magic link. Scanning the code opens the page in the browser, that page reads the secret (client-side only obviously) and uses it to sign a second request.
Requires a setup step first that the magic link doesn't (getting the secret stored in the browser).
Also no use if the user is trying to login with that particular device.
Requires a setup step first that the magic link doesn't (getting the secret stored in the browser).
Also no use if the user is trying to login with that particular device.
I think the idea is to stop mail providers automatically scannings the link, which would work until they start scanning the images for QR codes and scanning the links.
I don't know, GP comment said "rather than email" and not "rather than a link".
Even so, the potential problem caused by email providers automatically calling links in received emails is trivially prevented by having a "Confirm login" button at the destination, as displayed in the visual example in the article. Also, using a QR would then rely on the user having yet another device at hand to log in, perform the often awkward scanning procedure instead of an ordinary couple of clicks/taps... to then finally log in on their phone and not on the original device they were aiming to (as well as making it less secure in a public surrounding against covert attackers in close proximity, but that's a bit of an edge case).
Even so, the potential problem caused by email providers automatically calling links in received emails is trivially prevented by having a "Confirm login" button at the destination, as displayed in the visual example in the article. Also, using a QR would then rely on the user having yet another device at hand to log in, perform the often awkward scanning procedure instead of an ordinary couple of clicks/taps... to then finally log in on their phone and not on the original device they were aiming to (as well as making it less secure in a public surrounding against covert attackers in close proximity, but that's a bit of an edge case).
I don't understand how this would work if you are getting emails on the device you are trying to sign in with. Most devices (other than Android?) don't let you scan a code from a photo.
Yes of course the magic link itself. How would that defeat the purpose?
> How would that defeat the purpose?
If it is just the magic link then anyone, someone shoulder-surfing as you access the site/app for instance, could scan that code and get in by following the link.
If it is being used as a single factor then even worse: anyone can get the QR code to scan without you even being present.
QR codes will work in this sort of context, but more work is needed to prove the device scanning the code is the user's device and not some random's - you can't just use a straight single request following the magic link as credentials.
If it is just the magic link then anyone, someone shoulder-surfing as you access the site/app for instance, could scan that code and get in by following the link.
If it is being used as a single factor then even worse: anyone can get the QR code to scan without you even being present.
QR codes will work in this sort of context, but more work is needed to prove the device scanning the code is the user's device and not some random's - you can't just use a straight single request following the magic link as credentials.
Yeah. So one possiblity would be to confirm on the other device, where you're already logged in, that you're the one who photographed the QR code.
If you need to be already logged in the device that reads the QR code, then the QR is no longer encoding a magic link. It is more similar to doing the 2nd part of 2FA (after skipping the 1st) but adding unnecessary complexity in between. If we expect the user to be already logged in on a device that they have at hand, why give them a QR code instead of simply a PIN code or a notification to confirm the new login?
No, you already need to be logged in in the device that generates the QR code.
Another account to lose, when google bans you, because your kid liked something on youtube on a family account.
Magic links can be very helpful when needing to authorise people from an external system without API access, and they recently saved our asses from having to process over 10.000 refunds manually. Let me explain:
I work as a web dev for my local students union, and we recently had to develop a system to process refunds for basically every student there (9€ ticket related).
However, our university wanted nothing to do with that process, so we couldn’t use existing student login infrastructure to verify refund claims and limit them to one per student.
Luckily, each student gets a @stud.leuphana.de mail address. So all we had to do was send them a login link – if you weren’t a student or entered an invalid address you simply never received that, so you couldn’t apply.
The system worked great and with few issues, thanks to magic links!
I work as a web dev for my local students union, and we recently had to develop a system to process refunds for basically every student there (9€ ticket related).
However, our university wanted nothing to do with that process, so we couldn’t use existing student login infrastructure to verify refund claims and limit them to one per student.
Luckily, each student gets a @stud.leuphana.de mail address. So all we had to do was send them a login link – if you weren’t a student or entered an invalid address you simply never received that, so you couldn’t apply.
The system worked great and with few issues, thanks to magic links!
They’re yet another way for logging in to suck for people who use a password manager.
Another example of this is consumer apps that insist that you should login with your phone number and make you click an extra button to change to the email login option.
Another example of this is consumer apps that insist that you should login with your phone number and make you click an extra button to change to the email login option.
[deleted]
I think magic links have some give/take depending on your product/platform/audience.
One major use case that comes up more frequently is onboarding an untrusted device with a trusted one. WhatsApp seems to have mastered this class of problem using the QR code. Typing in codes and clicking emailed links is nice until you feel your phone's camera instantly log you in on your laptop by scanning its screen. The obvious downside is that this is a chicken-egg situation and you have to already have one chicken (or egg) to make it work.
One major use case that comes up more frequently is onboarding an untrusted device with a trusted one. WhatsApp seems to have mastered this class of problem using the QR code. Typing in codes and clicking emailed links is nice until you feel your phone's camera instantly log you in on your laptop by scanning its screen. The obvious downside is that this is a chicken-egg situation and you have to already have one chicken (or egg) to make it work.
If you’re concerned about the security aspect of this, keep in mind that most web applications have this feature, but instead of calling it a magic link and for signing in, it’s called “forgot password.” It generates a short-lived code and emails the user a link that lets them access their account.
There are, of course, challenges with this being the only (or default) way to sign in, but the security concerns with it (e.g. weak email password) probably aren’t new!
There are, of course, challenges with this being the only (or default) way to sign in, but the security concerns with it (e.g. weak email password) probably aren’t new!
It depends. I used magic links for a system where the user would log in every 6-12 months. It didn't make sense to force them to make a password.
Why not? Most browsers are slowing pushing password managers on users and the experience is lovely.
Register:
1. I click the password field.
2. I click "use autogenerated password"
3. Sign up.
For login:
1. Click "login".
The magic link experience is comparatively awful:
1. My email address never auto-fills so I need to click the field and select the completion suggestion. This is even worse if I am using a per-site email address.
2. Click login.
3. Go to my email.
4. Most often wait a few seconds.
5. Click the link. (add extra steps if I want to open in a private window or container tabs, or tons of pain for a different device)
6. Delete the email.
7. Find the new tab.
8. Maybe drag it to the right location in the tab bar or the right window.
And that is assuming that my email providers likes your email and it doesn't get greylisted, put in spam or even outright rejected.
Register:
1. I click the password field.
2. I click "use autogenerated password"
3. Sign up.
For login:
1. Click "login".
The magic link experience is comparatively awful:
1. My email address never auto-fills so I need to click the field and select the completion suggestion. This is even worse if I am using a per-site email address.
2. Click login.
3. Go to my email.
4. Most often wait a few seconds.
5. Click the link. (add extra steps if I want to open in a private window or container tabs, or tons of pain for a different device)
6. Delete the email.
7. Find the new tab.
8. Maybe drag it to the right location in the tab bar or the right window.
And that is assuming that my email providers likes your email and it doesn't get greylisted, put in spam or even outright rejected.
If you'd take a passwordless login with FIDO2 (now promoted "Passkeys" by Apple and Google) it would mainly require to use FaceID / Windows Hello / Fingerprint / PIN ... or whatever your devices deem necessary. Could be used on any and cross-device.
This may be a good future. But it seems like this isn't available to most people on most browsers yes. Especially if you want to sync across ecosystems.
I like how tangible passwords are. Even with a password manager I can write them on a piece of paper, store then in a vault and enter them into a new computer. My grandmother understands this process.
The key-based systems are basically magic. Magic that works great as long as you are inside the defined parameters on supported devices. I think it will be years after the "first baked release" before we see relatively user friendly manual backup and restore. Something this is second nature in most password managers.
I like how tangible passwords are. Even with a password manager I can write them on a piece of paper, store then in a vault and enter them into a new computer. My grandmother understands this process.
The key-based systems are basically magic. Magic that works great as long as you are inside the defined parameters on supported devices. I think it will be years after the "first baked release" before we see relatively user friendly manual backup and restore. Something this is second nature in most password managers.
I'm glad that your grandmother uses a password manager. We actually had a lot of feedback from teens and children and the concept of MFA/2FA seems to be hard to understand for less technical people. We were surprised by the actual understanding after some user research.
Yes, availability on all browsers and devices is not yet up to 100%. I hope to see a fast adoption, but agree that it could actually take some time. I use Passkeys on a daily basis for the last ~1.5 years wherever possible and won't go back anytime soon :)
Yes, availability on all browsers and devices is not yet up to 100%. I hope to see a fast adoption, but agree that it could actually take some time. I use Passkeys on a daily basis for the last ~1.5 years wherever possible and won't go back anytime soon :)
Chrome supports a webauthn solution built-in if you don't have windows/platform authentication support. I think Firefox does too, and probably even Safari on really old machines. If you are targeting semi-modern browsers and devices made in the last 5-10 years, you should be fine.
Yes. To my knowledge WebAuthN works great on Chrome, Safari, Firefox (most times) on MacOS/iOS and Windows devices. Linux is still an issue unfortunately as it seems.
Opposite of what I'd expect.
> Why not? Most browsers are slowing pushing password managers on users and the experience is lovely.
Most browsers in 1996 had "save this password" functionality... it's not a new thing.
Most browsers in 1996 had "save this password" functionality... it's not a new thing.
I think it has gotten more aggressive with popups to use a generated password appearing any time you focus a password field.
Need some more straw for your strawman there? I can't take this comment seriously when you misrepresent both approaches so badly.
There are legitimate downsides to magic links but this isn't realistic. Do you not have to enter email on register? Where is the email confirm step for password signup? Finding the tab you just opened and dragging it... really? All of that happens on first signup as well. And the comment you are replying to is talking about a 1-2 times a year process, is a magic link really so difficult to use twice a year?
There are legitimate downsides to magic links but this isn't realistic. Do you not have to enter email on register? Where is the email confirm step for password signup? Finding the tab you just opened and dragging it... really? All of that happens on first signup as well. And the comment you are replying to is talking about a 1-2 times a year process, is a magic link really so difficult to use twice a year?
> Do you not have to enter email on register?
Yes, I have omitted this from both workflows.
> Where is the email confirm step for password signup?
Good point, most websites will want to confirm the email address. I didn't include that.
> Finding the tab you just opened and dragging it... really?
Yes, I like to keep my tabs organized. I'm not even a tree-sytle-tabs user but at least want to get the right window. The point is that magic links disrupt my in-browser workflow with switching between apps and opening links in new tabs.
> is a magic link really so difficult to use twice a year?
No, but it is still more difficult than a password multiple times a year. Neither of these have a yearly cost so it doesn't really matter how often you do them. I wouldn't use "only twice a year" to justify that people can come to our office in person to authenticate over a magic link.
Yes, I have omitted this from both workflows.
> Where is the email confirm step for password signup?
Good point, most websites will want to confirm the email address. I didn't include that.
> Finding the tab you just opened and dragging it... really?
Yes, I like to keep my tabs organized. I'm not even a tree-sytle-tabs user but at least want to get the right window. The point is that magic links disrupt my in-browser workflow with switching between apps and opening links in new tabs.
> is a magic link really so difficult to use twice a year?
No, but it is still more difficult than a password multiple times a year. Neither of these have a yearly cost so it doesn't really matter how often you do them. I wouldn't use "only twice a year" to justify that people can come to our office in person to authenticate over a magic link.
> > Do you not have to enter email on register?
> Yes, I have omitted this from both workflows.
You specifically complained about having to enter your email on the magic link flow:
> 1. My email address never auto-fills so I need to click the field and select the completion suggestion. This is even worse if I am using a per-site email address.
> > is a magic link really so difficult to use twice a year?
> No, but it is still more difficult than a password multiple times a year. Neither of these have a yearly cost so it doesn't really matter how often you do them. I wouldn't use "only twice a year" to justify that people can come to our office in person to authenticate over a magic link.
Yearly costs to who? The user? I guess there isn't really a cost to them other than storing/keeping the password but there is absolutely a cost to the developer and I'm not talking about the cost of storing a hashed/salted password in the DB itself. There is a cost to build and maintain a password-based system. It means implementing and maintaining a number of things like your salt, password complexity requirements, password reset flow, and more like you going to use something like HaveIBeenPwned's hash list to make sure people aren't using known passwords?
Passwords are not zero-cost and have ongoing concerns. I'm not saying magic links are always or even often the best choice, just that they do have a perfectly valid use-case.
> Yes, I have omitted this from both workflows.
You specifically complained about having to enter your email on the magic link flow:
> 1. My email address never auto-fills so I need to click the field and select the completion suggestion. This is even worse if I am using a per-site email address.
> > is a magic link really so difficult to use twice a year?
> No, but it is still more difficult than a password multiple times a year. Neither of these have a yearly cost so it doesn't really matter how often you do them. I wouldn't use "only twice a year" to justify that people can come to our office in person to authenticate over a magic link.
Yearly costs to who? The user? I guess there isn't really a cost to them other than storing/keeping the password but there is absolutely a cost to the developer and I'm not talking about the cost of storing a hashed/salted password in the DB itself. There is a cost to build and maintain a password-based system. It means implementing and maintaining a number of things like your salt, password complexity requirements, password reset flow, and more like you going to use something like HaveIBeenPwned's hash list to make sure people aren't using known passwords?
Passwords are not zero-cost and have ongoing concerns. I'm not saying magic links are always or even often the best choice, just that they do have a perfectly valid use-case.
> but there is absolutely a cost to the developer and I'm not talking about the cost of storing a hashed/salted password in the DB itself. There is a cost to build and maintain a password-based system.
Seriously ... if today's developers are unable or unwilling to learn about basic hashing/salting and database storage/value comparison, and consider such concepts 'costly' ... we may have passed the zenith of technological advancement, and are in a 'downfall of the Roman Empire' phase. Have some pride in your work.
> It means implementing and maintaining a number of things like your salt, password complexity requirements, password reset flow, and more like you going to use something like HaveIBeenPwned's hash list to make sure people aren't using known passwords?
Do you reinvent the wheel whenever you need to drive somewhere? these things mostly are already baked into most frameworks, and if they are not, most developers build something like this once, and reuse.
> [Magic Links] they do have a perfectly valid use-case.
Annoying customers and forcing them out of your business into the willing hands of your competition?
Seriously ... if today's developers are unable or unwilling to learn about basic hashing/salting and database storage/value comparison, and consider such concepts 'costly' ... we may have passed the zenith of technological advancement, and are in a 'downfall of the Roman Empire' phase. Have some pride in your work.
> It means implementing and maintaining a number of things like your salt, password complexity requirements, password reset flow, and more like you going to use something like HaveIBeenPwned's hash list to make sure people aren't using known passwords?
Do you reinvent the wheel whenever you need to drive somewhere? these things mostly are already baked into most frameworks, and if they are not, most developers build something like this once, and reuse.
> [Magic Links] they do have a perfectly valid use-case.
Annoying customers and forcing them out of your business into the willing hands of your competition?
It's amazing how you, knowing nothing about my stack/use-case can speak with such authority. Going as far as to assume that we must be in a "'downfall of the Roman Empire' phase" because I see value in magic links and because I don't want to implement password support, again, in a product you know nothing about.
I have a very good reason for picking magic links, also the codebase for my project does not ruse a framework (there exist no good ones in the space I'm in) but instead of being curious you decided to be condescending. Cool.
I have a very good reason for picking magic links, also the codebase for my project does not ruse a framework (there exist no good ones in the space I'm in) but instead of being curious you decided to be condescending. Cool.
> You specifically complained about having to enter your email on the magic link flow:
For logins yes:
> My email address never auto-fills so I need to click the field and select the completion suggestion. This is even worse if I am using a per-site email address.
My email always autofills for regular login forms. Maybe this is a bug in my browser but either way it is an inconvenience that I face.
> implementing and maintaining a number of things like your salt, password complexity requirements, password reset flow
If you are using any halfway popular language there is a library that does all of this for you. In fact it is probably easier to use a pre-packaged library than for magic links, but I'm sure those libraries could appear if magic links become more popular.
For logins yes:
> My email address never auto-fills so I need to click the field and select the completion suggestion. This is even worse if I am using a per-site email address.
My email always autofills for regular login forms. Maybe this is a bug in my browser but either way it is an inconvenience that I face.
> implementing and maintaining a number of things like your salt, password complexity requirements, password reset flow
If you are using any halfway popular language there is a library that does all of this for you. In fact it is probably easier to use a pre-packaged library than for magic links, but I'm sure those libraries could appear if magic links become more popular.
Magic links are half factor auth. They're probably good enough for apps that no one actually cares about though.
A lot of people brought up scanners that auto-click links. How do these scanners deal with verification email links or unsubscribe links in general?
I mean unsubscribe links are commonly two-stage (you have to click a button on the target website), but now always. Never saw a similar two-stage verification link though.
I mean unsubscribe links are commonly two-stage (you have to click a button on the target website), but now always. Never saw a similar two-stage verification link though.
The article doesn't seem to cover a potential issue- updating an email address associated with an account (2FA aside).
If you've somehow lost access to email, a typical pattern is that you can login to your account, update the username and receive a validation email at the new address to confirm its validity.
If you've somehow lost access to email, a typical pattern is that you can login to your account, update the username and receive a validation email at the new address to confirm its validity.
"Contact support to update your email"?
Existed earliest in 2010? No way. Earlier. I remember in the 90s forgot your password link from e-mail signed you in, after which you could change the password.
the problem with using this technique alone is it’s basically 1FA all over again. hacked email means everything is hacked. excluding the need to remember a password, how are magic links an improvement?
This is just an advert by a competitor.
I think yes, because people hate magic ? Change it to Simple link might work.
Anyone have advice for creating easy-to-use-yet-secure login solutions for users who are less tech-literate?
My company is an ISP, and most of our customers are not very "good" at using technology. Any yet, they do sometimes want to log into our dashboard for one reason or another, and it tends to be a lot of trouble.
We've found that:
- Many people do not have an email. Some people don't have a phone number. Many people have only one or the other, but not both.
- People typo their emails... a LOT. I initially had some very simple validation for email addresses, until I started getting droves of emails that were one character off. I'm at this very moment working on a feature to alert users if they type "gmail.co", "gmail.con" or "gnail.com", which are all very common (and two of which are completely valid domain names by the way!).
- Some people get confused by "creating a new account" or dealing with multiple accounts in general. They'll say "my email login didn't work." Well, to me it's obvious that they have a different password for different accounts, but to them it's not.
- Building on that, they are not great at password resets. The "send a password reset to email" thing is confusing to them, because from their perspective their email is the account. Am I resetting my email password?? They don't like it so they don't want to do it.
- Since we are an ISP providing customers with WiFi, there is also confusion between the WiFi password and the dashboard password. I've had people successfully reset their dashboard password, expecting it to also set their WiFi password.
- Literacy can also be less than ideal. I once reset a customer's WiFi password over the phone, and the new password contained an exclamation point. She didn't know what an exclamation point was. I got her to do SHIFT-1 eventually, but it took a while. (I found out later that nobody else sees an exclamation point as an "upside-down i", which is what I've always seen it as. The proper way to describe it to someone who doesn't know is "line with a dot underneath".) Now my password generator only uses A-Za-z0-9 (but not 0 or O).
So, I have been learning the hard way that not every person in the world is an avid Hacker News reader who knows what accounts and password hashes are and how everything works. And yet, these people deserve to be empowered by technology just like the rest of us.
The thing is, many of these folks are able to use software just fine, it's just that they have trouble getting logged in. It really is the logging in that trips everything up.
So I've been thinking lately that I want to fix this for my company, but I'm unsure what to try.
I had the thought of trying Webauthn, but that seems unusable for me as per this comment I wrote a few weeks ago[0]. If I could solve the problem in that comment, I think a lot of my customers would use "Login with TouchID", "Login with FaceID", etc.
Anyway, my point is that no, I do not think magic links are outdated. We use a lot of magic links. Need to update your credit card? We'll text you a link. Want to reschedule your install? We'll text you a link. This is the best way we've found to actually get our software into the users' hands.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31850471
My company is an ISP, and most of our customers are not very "good" at using technology. Any yet, they do sometimes want to log into our dashboard for one reason or another, and it tends to be a lot of trouble.
We've found that:
- Many people do not have an email. Some people don't have a phone number. Many people have only one or the other, but not both.
- People typo their emails... a LOT. I initially had some very simple validation for email addresses, until I started getting droves of emails that were one character off. I'm at this very moment working on a feature to alert users if they type "gmail.co", "gmail.con" or "gnail.com", which are all very common (and two of which are completely valid domain names by the way!).
- Some people get confused by "creating a new account" or dealing with multiple accounts in general. They'll say "my email login didn't work." Well, to me it's obvious that they have a different password for different accounts, but to them it's not.
- Building on that, they are not great at password resets. The "send a password reset to email" thing is confusing to them, because from their perspective their email is the account. Am I resetting my email password?? They don't like it so they don't want to do it.
- Since we are an ISP providing customers with WiFi, there is also confusion between the WiFi password and the dashboard password. I've had people successfully reset their dashboard password, expecting it to also set their WiFi password.
- Literacy can also be less than ideal. I once reset a customer's WiFi password over the phone, and the new password contained an exclamation point. She didn't know what an exclamation point was. I got her to do SHIFT-1 eventually, but it took a while. (I found out later that nobody else sees an exclamation point as an "upside-down i", which is what I've always seen it as. The proper way to describe it to someone who doesn't know is "line with a dot underneath".) Now my password generator only uses A-Za-z0-9 (but not 0 or O).
So, I have been learning the hard way that not every person in the world is an avid Hacker News reader who knows what accounts and password hashes are and how everything works. And yet, these people deserve to be empowered by technology just like the rest of us.
The thing is, many of these folks are able to use software just fine, it's just that they have trouble getting logged in. It really is the logging in that trips everything up.
So I've been thinking lately that I want to fix this for my company, but I'm unsure what to try.
I had the thought of trying Webauthn, but that seems unusable for me as per this comment I wrote a few weeks ago[0]. If I could solve the problem in that comment, I think a lot of my customers would use "Login with TouchID", "Login with FaceID", etc.
Anyway, my point is that no, I do not think magic links are outdated. We use a lot of magic links. Need to update your credit card? We'll text you a link. Want to reschedule your install? We'll text you a link. This is the best way we've found to actually get our software into the users' hands.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31850471
I think a lot of the complaints here are "nerd problems".
For customers they seem like a super convenient thing, I was just implementing them in my app. Yes magic links have problems and it's probably making me lean more towards the "emailing a code" option now, some of those problems outlined aren't easy to ignore.
The app I'm working on, users would login probably once or twice a year. I just can't imagine they want to deal with passwords, especially because my app is very niche, they'd use it once a year for one thing only. What I can imagine them having to do is constantly use the "forgot my password" feature anyway.
For conversion easy logins are really important.Anyone have any better ideas than magic links, passwords or one time codes in email?
For customers they seem like a super convenient thing, I was just implementing them in my app. Yes magic links have problems and it's probably making me lean more towards the "emailing a code" option now, some of those problems outlined aren't easy to ignore.
The app I'm working on, users would login probably once or twice a year. I just can't imagine they want to deal with passwords, especially because my app is very niche, they'd use it once a year for one thing only. What I can imagine them having to do is constantly use the "forgot my password" feature anyway.
For conversion easy logins are really important.Anyone have any better ideas than magic links, passwords or one time codes in email?
I quit using services that have magic links as their only authorisation method - and so does my 65 year old, very non-nerdy mother (she complains about 'having to wait for a damn email' all the time)
> Anyone have any better ideas than magic links, passwords or one time codes in email?
Passwords. Password managers are not a new concept, they have been around for decades by now, have deep browser integration (either because they often are part of the browser, or in the case of Apple, the OS), and are easily understood by users.
> Anyone have any better ideas than magic links, passwords or one time codes in email?
Passwords. Password managers are not a new concept, they have been around for decades by now, have deep browser integration (either because they often are part of the browser, or in the case of Apple, the OS), and are easily understood by users.
> I think a lot of the complaints here are "nerd problems".
Not really.
- Email deliverability is a serious issue - some well-known providers (Apple and Microsoft) can delay email up to five minutes because they're scanning it, and that's assuming that it didn't went to spam. Compared to 2FA login, that's an eternity.
- Also, speaking of scanning emails, some do "click" them to check that it's not a harmful page (Microsoft, Google Workspace if admin enabled it, Barracuda which is common on enterprise), rendering the link invalid.
- Not everyone keeps their email logged in (or uses a different app/client to keep them logged in), which results in worse experience.
- Most mobile email clients (Mail on Apple, Gmail, Outlook) by default launch a different window, meaning you're logging into the mail client and not the browser.
Not really.
- Email deliverability is a serious issue - some well-known providers (Apple and Microsoft) can delay email up to five minutes because they're scanning it, and that's assuming that it didn't went to spam. Compared to 2FA login, that's an eternity.
- Also, speaking of scanning emails, some do "click" them to check that it's not a harmful page (Microsoft, Google Workspace if admin enabled it, Barracuda which is common on enterprise), rendering the link invalid.
- Not everyone keeps their email logged in (or uses a different app/client to keep them logged in), which results in worse experience.
- Most mobile email clients (Mail on Apple, Gmail, Outlook) by default launch a different window, meaning you're logging into the mail client and not the browser.
I'm in the same boat. People login 1 time a year (it's for an event) and using magic links means I don't have to deal with password management, forgot/reset password flows, and more. It also means signing up is as easy as entering your email (the web/app prompts you for the other required info on first login).
Out of thousands of people who used the system I only had 1-2 people who had issues. One was using their work email (why do people do this?) and I think it was being filtered and the other was using Yahoo but for some reason the emails were slow to deliver, 2-3 minutes (far from the only Yahoo user, only one that had issues).
Out of thousands of people who used the system I only had 1-2 people who had issues. One was using their work email (why do people do this?) and I think it was being filtered and the other was using Yahoo but for some reason the emails were slow to deliver, 2-3 minutes (far from the only Yahoo user, only one that had issues).
I mean, the magic link could be an addition to the "forgot password" screen, then? As in "reset password or login via magic link"?
Sending a one-time code via email fixes this, and is in practice about as easy to use as a link on desktop.
In our app (Loomio) we default to magic/codes, but let users use passwords if they prefer.