Chameth.com - posts like securing-all-the-things-with-1password, why-you-should-be-using-https but not debugging-beyond-the-debugger, how-i-get-things-done

Securing all the things with 1Password

2025-11-26T00:00:00Z

For many years I’ve been a keen user of Bitwarden. Recently I’ve had a lot of small paper-cut problems. The browser extension was redesigned and just doesn’t quite work how I expect any more. The prompt to save new login info misfired more than it worked. The mobile app stopped background refreshing properly. No one issue was enough to make me want to leave Bitwarden, but it definitely wasn’t sparking joy. Then there were rumblings about a price increase. I don’t think they’ve announced anything, but the numbers I saw were a jump from $10/year to $24/year. A nearly 2.5x price increase for a tool that was actively getting worse over time did not seem like a good deal to me¹.

I spent a while looking at alternatives, but there were very few that met my needs. Nordpass is highly praised but doesn’t support saving TOTP codes on personal plans². All the nice open-source/self-hosted solutions fall down when you want reliable synchronisation to an iOS device (which is fair enough). Proton Pass looked like it had all the features, but the pricing was asinine. Different pages showed different prices, the prices were introductory rates that jumped up on renewal, but that was hidden away in small print, etc. Yuck. The prices are also pretty high. More or less the same as 1Password, which I’d been discounting due to the cost, until now…

After eliminating basically every other option, I took a serious look at 1Password. It seemed to tick all the right boxes, I’d often heard good things about it, and it wouldn’t actually be much more expensive than Bitwarden if they went ahead with the rumoured price increase. I started a trial to give it a test.

Initial impressions

1Password is — as you’d expect for something that originated as a Mac app — very pretty. But it’s also highly functional. The looks don’t get in the way, they’re nice extras on top. When it’s locked, you get a large version of the 1Password logo, which is a front-on view of the barrel of a lock, next to the password input. When you authenticate, the barrel turns as though you’d put a key in and rotated it, and then the background splits in two and opens like a vault door. Does a password manager need to do that? No. Does it make me a little bit happy every time I see it? Yes. Look at it, it’s amazing!

The design philosophy carries through the rest of the app. Despite using Bitwarden daily, I often clicked on the wrong thing when I wanted to do anything other than autofill; in about a month of using 1Password I don’t think I’ve ever misclicked or been confused about the UI. The browser extension just feels snappier than Bitwarden, too. I’m not sure if it’s actually faster or if the design just makes it feel that way.

Functionality-wise, 1Password does everything Bitwarden did for me but slightly better. Bitwarden kicked you to its web interface for some operations (like checking compromised passwords); 1Password has that all built into the app. Instead of editing entries in a fiddly little browser popup, 1Password just summons forth the desktop app and you edit it there. It does a good job of detecting QR codes for TOTPs and offering to save them. I think the only small complaint I have is that the browser extension doesn’t have an autofill keybind. You can rig that up via the desktop app, but it feels like 1Password leans towards you using the UI it adds on login forms. To be fair, that UI works really well, and is very useful when you have multiple accounts on a site. My muscle memory for autofilling is strong, though.

Diving deeper

At this point I’d decided to switch fully to 1Password, so I started digging into what else it could do. The “Watchtower” feature combines a bunch of reporting about passwords (weak, breached, reused, and so on), but also lists sites where 1Password knows you can use passkeys or 2FA and don’t have them set up. I’d previously disabled passkey support in Bitwarden because it just appeared one day and got in the way of me trying to use a YubiKey, but decided to give them a go with 1Password. “Passkeys” is basically just a marketing term for FIDO2’s WebAuthn with automatic discovery bolted on top. The big problem is how you synchronise or export them. It’s all well and good letting your iPhone create a passkey when the Amazon app arbitrarily prompts it to, but what happens when you log in on a different device, or swap to Android, or whatever? Having 1Password deal with them fixes that³.

The passkey flow is very smooth: 1Password pops up an account selector, with obvious options to create a new account or pass the request through to another device like a YubiKey. It’s smart enough to guess the right account most times, even when you’ve got 17 different Google accounts for $reasons. Using them is equally simple: it just shows a popup and you tap to confirm you want to use the passkey. The Watchtower functionality made it really easy to go through and add passkeys everywhere that supports them. The thing I really appreciate is that they make the data that powers it public. It’s obviously partially a marketing thing for them, but it’s also a useful resource they could have kept proprietary.

Passkeys are a bit basic, though. 1Password has many more fun offerings. There’s an entire developer section with various goodies. At first I thought “that’s nice but I won’t use it”, but now I’m using basically everything it offers. The first thing to draw me in was the CLI. It’s pretty straightforward, but like the browser extensions it can nicely integrate with the desktop app so you unlock them all at once, deal with auth prompts in the GUI, and so forth. I have a couple of command-line tools that need passwords (e.g. for dealing with encrypted backups); now instead of prompting for the passwords, they shell out to op read and I authorise it via a popup in the 1Password app. Simple, but a nice quality of life improvement.

Next up there’s a beta feature called “Environments”. This lets you define groups of environment variables within 1Password, and have them exported automatically to certain destinations. At the minute it supports exporting to the AWS SecretsManager, and local .env files. When making a local file it actually makes a named pipe, so the credentials aren’t just sitting on disk (and won’t end up accidentally committed to anything). When the 1Password vault is locked, anything trying to read from the file will cause an authentication popup, much like with the CLI tool. I used to have the mentality that if something could read arbitrary files on disk, it was basically “game over” from a security point of view. Recent events made me realise there’s some value in defence-in-depth there, though, and 1Password provides a nice solution.

Fingerprints + Linux = Sadness

One feature of 1Password had me feeling a bit left out. Instead of entering your vault password to unlock it every time, you can have it invoke the system authentication library. On an iPhone this uses Face ID, on a Mac it can invoke Touch ID, and on Linux it uses Polkit. In the default configuration, Polkit just asks for your local user password, which is not much of an improvement. A fingerprint scanner seemed like the obvious solution here: it’s both a lot more convenient than typing a long password, and provides some assurance that it’s actually me doing the action⁴. Unfortunately, fingerprint readers on Linux seem to be a bit of a sorry affair.

Don’t get me wrong: there’s support. libfprint has a big list of supported devices, but I found it almost impossible to actually find a device I could buy that had one of the listed sensors. Most of them seem to be exclusively built into laptops. A lot of the cheaper devices just use whatever sensor they can get their hands on, so it’s pot luck if you receive a version that will work with libfprint or one that won’t. There’s also not a lot of information beyond that published by libfprint. I guess it makes sense: external fingerprint readers just aren’t a thing most people care about. While that makes me feel all special, it’s somewhat prohibitive to getting an actual working solution.

I’d given up on finding an answer to this when I stumbled upon an article by Scott Laird. He uses a YubiKey Bio to do it, via pam_u2f. The Bio isn’t actually a fingerprint reader: it just has an on-board reader to secure the credentials. The OS doesn’t get involved in the process. But because it can provide a fingerprint-secured U2F key, and pam_u2f can require that key to perform system operations, you basically get the same result. Maybe it’s actually even better than using a “real” fingerprint reader, as the data is secured on the hardware device…

The YubiKey Bio was a bit more pricey than I really wanted, coming in at around £90, but it felt like a worthy investment to add a bit of security and avoid typing a password dozens of times a day. The setup was simple: the official app that you use to enrol fingerprints is packaged in the Arch User Repository, and it worked perfectly. I already had pam_u2f set up as I used a (non-Bio) YubiKey to gate access to sudo, so I just generated a new key on the Bio, updated my config to use that, and added it to the Polkit policy. Now when I need to unlock 1Password or authenticate something, it prompts me to scan my fingerprint. Perfect!

Biometric all the things \o/

One of the other things Scott mentioned in that article was SSH keys. I’d seen 1Password supports acting as an SSH agent, but didn’t really see why I’d want it to. I used a resident key on my old YubiKey, so I didn’t have much to gain from a security point of view. Scott’s article made me realise I could have some big convenience gains, though. Currently every time I need to use the key, I enter a PIN and then physically touch it. I don’t mind this for the most part, but it turns out git-lfs does something like four different requests every time you do a git operation, none of which reuse the same SSH connection for some reason. That gets painful when each request involves a PIN and a touch. I also liked the idea of using pam_rssh for sudo authentication, but didn’t want to have to do the PIN-and-touch dance every time I used it.

You can probably see where this is going: I generated an SSH key in 1Password, and then… spent literal hours disabling all the other SSH agents that were running on my system, and trying to figure out where SSH_AUTH_SOCK was being populated. I didn’t manage to figure that out in the end⁵, and ended up just overriding it to point at 1Password’s agent socket. I added the new key to GitHub, and did the usual ssh git@github.com test, and it worked perfectly. 1Password prompts to allow access to the key, showing the process requesting access, and authorising it requires a fingerprint read:

can haz ssh key?

I’m not sure why Kitty doesn’t get an icon in the prompt; other applications do. You can expand the details section to see the key fingerprint being requested, as well as the exact process name and PID requesting the key. With the proof of concept done, I generated a couple more keys: one for normal SSH, and one for gaining root access using pam_rssh. Using different keys ensures I get prompted for them separately, and means a malicious app couldn’t sneakily ask for a Git key but actually pivot to SSH into a server. Not sure that’s ever likely to be a problem, but it’s basically no additional work for a bit more defence-in-depth, so why not?

I also took a moment to configure pam_u2f for both lightdm and xfce4-screensaver, so I can now log in and unlock my PC with my fingerprint. It’s not quite as smooth as Touch ID on a Mac, but it’s pretty close.

As an aside: this is not the first time I’ve been in this situation. Both Spotify and Todoist have focused on features I don’t want or need (including, but not limited to, pretty much everything branded “AI”), and then hiked the price up afterwards. It’s not quite standard enshittification, but it’s clear that our incentives no longer align properly. ↩︎
Or didn’t, at the time I looked. It now says “All plans” on the website but the docs only exist for business accounts, and there doesn’t seem to be any announcement explaining the change. ↩︎
Having Bitwarden deal with them would also have fixed that, but it got in my way instead of helping me, so… ↩︎
or it’s not me, but I’ll be busy dealing with the presumably-undesired removal of one of my digits, so probably won’t care about whatever is happening on the computer. ↩︎
Although I’m pretty sure the answer starts and ends with “systemd, somehow”. ↩︎

Why you should be using HTTPS

2016-06-17T00:00:00Z

The EFF’s HTTPS Everywhere logo

One of my favourite hobbyhorses recently has been the use of HTTPS, or lack thereof. HTTPS is the thing that makes the little padlock appear in your browser, and has existed for over 20 years. In the past, that little padlock was the exclusive preserve of banks and other ‘high security’ establishments; over time its use has gradually expanded to most (but not all) websites that handle user information, and the time is now right for it to become ubiquitous.

Why use HTTPS?

There are numerous advantages to using HTTPS, both for the users of a website and for the operator:

Privacy

The most obvious advantage is that HTTPS gives your users additional privacy. An insecure (HTTP) request can potentially be read by anyone on the same network, or the network operators, or anyone who happens to operate a network along the path between the user and the server.

Users on shared WiFi networks (such as those in coffee shops, hotels, or offices) are particularly vulnerable to passive sniffing by anyone else on that network. If the network is open (as is frequently the case) then anyone in radio range can see exactly what the user is up to.

Integrity

HTTPS also helps to maintain the integrity of your site. With a plain HTTP request, there’s nothing to stop anyone in between the server and the user from modifying the content of the request or the response. This is a frequent tactic used by annoying WiFi gateways (such as the ones you’d find in a hotel), dubious ISPs who want to serve you extra adverts, or just plain old nefarious attackers.

If you’re trying to convey some kind of information to users (and if you aren’t, why exactly are you running a website again?) it seems beneficial to both you and them if the information arrives as you intended, rather than in a modified form due to someone or something tampering with it.

Security

If your website has any kind of authentication, or session identifiers, it becomes extremely vulnerable to an attacker monitoring the traffic and stealing the credentials. This was starkly demonstrated in 2010 when Firesheep was released. This tool allowed anyone to quickly and automatically hijack social media accounts of anyone on the same network who was using HTTP to access them.

Even if your login pages are served over HTTPS, if you send a single session ID cookie over HTTP (such as a page you decided wasn’t particularly ‘important’) then an attacker can probably spoof the user’s session and gain full access to their account. Again, in the case of open WiFi networks that could be anyone in radio range.

Search engine rankings

Some search engines use HTTPS as a signal in their ranking algorithms. Google announced in 2004 that it was using the presence of HTTPS as a small positive signal, but that it may strengthen that signal over time as more and more websites switch to using a secure transport. It’s not unthinkable that at some point in the future there will be HTTPS-only search engines.

But… But… But…

There are lots of excuses for not implementing HTTPS. Most of them are either misguided or outdated.

It’s too expensive and/or complicated

In the past, getting HTTPS certificates was a pain. A number of free suppliers have existed for a while but the process for getting their certificates wasn’t particularly straight forward, and many imposed arbitrary restrictions on the certificate parameters. Even once you had the certificate, you had to fiddle about with your HTTP server configuration to make it work, remember to manually get a new certificate when the old one expired, and lots of other annoying busywork.

With the arrival of Let’s Encrypt, all that changed. You can retrieve and deploy a free HTTPS certificate with two or three commands. Renewal can be handled completely automatically with a single command executed by cron.

There’s no point; nothing on my site is sensitive

You might not think your content warrants privacy, but can you speak for everyone who accesses it? Even content that seems mundane to you — such as travel advice, or technical writing — could be used to build up a profile of a user. If an attacker is monitoring traffic in a coffee shop and sees a user looking at travel advice and weather forecasts for a foreign country, he could use that information to plan a burglary knowing that the user will be away. Similarly, some content which is perfectly mundane to you may actually be very sensitive in other countries with repressive governments. HTTPS makes it much harder for these people to snoop on traffic.

From another angle, if you’re offering any kind of information, instructions, or especially file downloads, there’s a severe risk to users if the content is modified on its way to them. An evil sysadmin could rewrite your travel advice to suggest visiting the local drug dealer’s hangout, or replace your download with a malware-infested version.

HTTPS is slower, uses more resources, etc

Back in 1995 this might have been a valid argument. Enabling HTTPS on a modern server will make an almost negligible difference to performance. If you also enable HTTP/2 (which most implementations only support over HTTPS), it’s likely to actually use fewer resources, and result in a faster, smoother experience for your users. HTTP/2 was designed to work with HTTPS, and designed with modern requirements and networking techniques in mind.

CloudFlare have an excellent demonstration of the benefits of HTTP/2, and it can show speed improvements of 2-3x in a typical environment. On top of being faster, HTTP/2 uses fewer connections which results in less resource overhead on both the server and the client.

So what are you waiting for?

If you run a website and aren’t using HTTPS, give it a try.