Attestation is built-in to the FIDO and WebAuthn protocols, which enables each service provider to use a cryptographically verified chain of trust from the device’s manufacturer to choose which security keys to trust, or to be more skeptical of, based on their individual needs and concerns.
One of the most significant challenges any web-facing site or service has with user authentication is ensuring the user is practicing good habits with their authentication mechanisms. A great deal of effort has been invested to ensure users use strong, hard to guess passwords, but this cannot protect against users looking for shortcuts - re-using passwords across multiple sites, creating simple passwords which technically meet the recommendations and the like. With WebAuthn, this is no longer a concern, as the user’s authenticator ensures a strong authentication - if the authenticator itself meets the requirements.
To address this without compromising a user’s privacy, WebAuthn supports device Attestation. Relying Parties can request on authenticator registration that the WebAuthn Authenticator device send an Attestation certificate. This certificate contains identifying information about the Authenticator type (the GU and the credential being registered, signed with a private key unique to the manufacturer. Uniquely identifying information, such as serial number or user information is not shared. The relying party can validate the attestation certificate against the publicly registered WebAuthn attestation keys, and identify the manufacturer and model of the WebAuthn Authenticator being used.
By default, Attestation is not required. By requesting but not requiring direct or basic attestation, a web service gains a extremely useful benefit without adding additional friction to the user. Attestation does not require additional user input, but can offer stronger protections to their account. For a more in depth discussion on implementing attestation, Google has a set of best practices around WebAuthn Authenticators (referred to as “Security Keys” in their documentation).
At its heart, Attestation in WebAuthn allows a relying party to identify and verify the authenticator being used is a valid authentication product and not a malicious attack attempting to compromise a user’s account. But there are further advantages. By storing the attestation certificate for a credential, services can offer targeted warnings to users in the event vulnerabilities are discovered for WebAuthn authenticators. Services have options from simply warning users about authenticators which may place their account at risk, to limiting permissions to login events using a vulnerable authenticator to outright blocking access to accounts.
Further, services with regulatory restrictions on the types of devices which are permitted to be used as authenticators can use attestation with allow lists to limit users to only approved devices. US Federal Entities require FIPS certification on all authentication devices - attestation with an allow list enables this restriction. Allow lists filter out authenticators not approved by the relying party, ensuring only those on the list can be used. In addition, other sites or services may also take advantage of this feature, by purchasing WebAuthn Authentication devices with custom attestation for their user base, and restricting valid devices to only those which have the attestation key unique to their purchase.
Alternatively, relying parties may utilize attestation to take proactive actions to ensure their users are not securing their accounts with flawed authenticators. By using attestation with a deny list, authenticators with known flaws or vulnerabilities may be prevented from being used. Further, by recording the attestation metadata at registration, users who may have already registered an authenticator before a flaw is found may be identified and actions can be taken to secure their accounts. This can range from presenting a warning to users about their vulnerabilities, to restricting permissions for sessions authenticated with a vulnerable authenticator, to preventing such an authenticator from being accepted at all.
In short, attestation provides a tool to sites or services to be proactive in protecting their user’s accounts, and grants a measure of control to ensure users follow best practices. Even if there is no immediate need to use attestation data, by having it on hand it opens the options to do so in the future.
In order to enable the most flexibility and security, Yubico recommends that administrators and developers configure or build the following into their systems:
Request “direct” attestation and store responses in your authentication system, but do not require it unless necessary.
Direct attestation responses are provided only during credential registration, and allow your service to know the details (e.g. make, model, and version) of the devices being used with your service. Even if you don’t parse them now, you can store them and validate them for later use in risk-based and auditing decisions.
If you need to require direct attestation, validate the signature of the attestation when it is provided, and use a deny list of authenticators you know to cause issues or to be unsafe, rather than an allow list.
Make sure to notify people who are using authenticators that you are more skeptical of, or are disallowing, in a way that informs them why this was done if possible.
If you need to use an allow list, validate the signature of the attestation when it is provided as listed above. Make sure to allow all, or a subset based on your criteria, of the authenticators listed in the FIDO metadata service version 3, and stay up to date with changes in the metadata service’s list.
Specifically, we recommend you notify administrators of changes in the MDS data so they can make informed decisions about what to do if a new device is added or if one is removed. Define a policy for user impact in the event a registered authenticator has been removed or otherwise flagged as unsafe, allowing for continued access to protected accounts while providing incentive for the user to remove suspect credentials and replace them with ones tied to approved authenticators.
Automated addition of new devices might be reasonable depending on your requirements, but we recommend against automated removal in the unlikely event there are MDS issues or errors.
If using an Attestation Allow or Deny List to direct a user’s authentication flow, it is important to keep your list up to date. This ensures new devices entering the market are accepted, while also ensuring newly discovered vulnerabilities are also taken into account. There are a number of methods which can be used, including:
The FIDO Alliance’s Metadata Service - Focus on hardware backed authenticators, with the widest range of devices
NIST CMVP’s FIPS validated modules list - Lists only FIPS certified devices.
CSPN Certified Products list - Similar to NIST’s validated list, CSPN lists the devices certified by the Certification Securite de Premier Niveau (CSPN).
Further, information can be received directly from the manufacturer of the authenticator, as in the case of custom attestation certificates.