1984, 5 months ago

Single sign in to the fediverse seems awful. Then we are logging in to it through American big tech servers. Forget anonymity and no tracking. Probably see ads on the login screen too.

But otherwise, sure. A single server is not always a bad idea. In practice, this is how Lemmy is too. Most people are on Lemmy.world, and they picked that server because they don’t think decentralized is important.

mindlight, 5 months ago

Single Sign On doesn’t mean that “American BigTech Servers” have to be used.

Essentially, for the users, it means that an account for site A can be used to login on site B because site A and site B trust each other.

A concept to Google if one wants to know more is “federated login”.

maegul, 5 months ago

Yea this is exactly what I was thinking about.

The idea being that there would be circles of trusted platforms and once you have an account with one you have an account on all of them. Which, I imagine, would allow easy/quick cross posting from one platform to another when desired and make it easier to build and maintain an aggregating client that allows you to view all the platforms within such a “circle of trust” that you’re interested in through a unified interface.

Aatube, 5 months ago

@maegul How would servers share accounts and passwords? Allowing any server to know what a user’s password should be is not very good for security.

@fediverse @maegul @1984 @mindlight

maegul, 5 months ago

@Aatube @1984 @mindlight @maegul

Yea I don’t know the best approach to that. Either a separate server for managing IDs. Or you always a principal server that manages authentication for its platform and others within the trusted “circle”. And then, should the principal server fail, you can switch to another server as your principal. Hubzilla/Streams has some process like that AFAIK.

Sean, 5 months ago

@Aatube @maegul @1984 @mindlight @maegul
Couldn't it be like public-private keys such PGP protocols, where the users have the private key and the platforms have the public key? It's seems quite good privacy, some would even say it's "pretty good privacy".

Aatube, 5 months ago

@Sean Nice pun :D

I don’t think requiring users to use a really long and virtually unmemorizable password (the private key) would be a pretty good idea for a social network either.

@fediverse @maegul @1984 @mindlight @maegul

Sean, 5 months ago

@Aatube @maegul @1984 @mindlight @maegul
The private key doesn't need to be memorized, it stays saved on the device that the client software is on, allowing the user to integrate mobile device's biometric reader (fingerprint/face/iris/whatever) to confirm identity, or use security key, there are already different ways to implement it that doesn't require pw memorization.

I've got a long unmemorizable string for Firefox sync, Brave, Proton Mail/Pass, it's still more secure than pw memorized

Aatube, 5 months ago

@Sean Not all devices support passkeys.

Unmemorizable passwords are not the kind I like to use. I'd rather be able to login on some random incognito guest computer.

@fediverse @maegul @1984 @mindlight @maegul

joeldebruijn, 5 months ago

Trusting other peoples identification and authorizattion isnt about sharing accounts and passwords. If user A of server X want to log in at server Y, server Y asks server X if it knows this user A. If so server X handles the password/mfa check and just gives the green light to server Y.

Aatube, 5 months ago

@joeldebruijn Ah, that makes much more sense. I guess this could be also used for phishing, but that may be unavoidable.

@fediverse @maegul @1984 @mindlight @maegul