4 comments

  • breput36 minutes ago
    It was too early, but also lingered in development for far too long. It also never had the proper server-side implementations, so it could feel like a solution in search of a problem.<p>That said, the design is far more advanced than the rolling disaster which is Passkey and it is much better suited for small Yubikey-type devices, where you could easily have unlimited site support. It also had intrinsic portability and advanced real-world security considerations, such as an attestation that instructed a server to disable weaker authentication methods, such as email or SMS (which is also a customer support disaster, but still...).<p>Ultimately, SQRL is an object lesson that the best technical design doesn&#x27;t always win - it needs the right timing and robust community&#x2F;corporate support.<p>Edit: Also, the (client) reference implementation was written in x86 assembly language for Windows. So I&#x27;d say the timing, support, and portability are all reasons for the lack of adoption.
  • paulryanrogers39 minutes ago
    SQRL has the same weakness as passkeys: secrets on device are too easily lost, gatekeepers too greedy to solve that without taking away user sovereignty, and people don&#x27;t understand it.<p>IMO both solutions are a lost cause. Hopefully I&#x27;m just cynical and something can be worked out.
  • kj4ips1 hour ago
    Discord and Steam have a user login flow that is very similar to what SQRL was aiming for, including a QR code alongside the username&#x2F;password fields. While it&#x27;s a closed implementation of a different system, I think of SQRL every time I use it.<p>I might be biased, I used the PPP Pam module on linux for years, until I moved to TOTP, and then eventually to pubkey-only.
  • DANmode1 hour ago
    eh. it’s cool,<p>but compared to FIDO which existed when it was made, it’s pretty obviously “wrong”.