feat: support multiple passkey per domain #259
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This is a brute force approach from the contract side only, the more elegant side would be to use the authenticationResponse.id which would require persisting it and breaking the signature format!
Fixes an issue with validation
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Add another layer in the mapping to perform the passkey lookup, allowing up to 256 unique passkeys per domain (overkill?).
The upside is that this fits within the existing signature format, with the only breaking changes to how to revoke or view passkeys.
The downside is that for each additional passkey, you linearly increase the verification cost of the most recently added one. (looks like about 20k additional gas per key)
Additional context
This is a brute force approach from the contract side only, the more elegant side would be to use the authenticationResponse.id which would require persisting it and breaking the signature format from the SDK!
Thoughts?