<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Multiple named security keys / passkeys per user + choosing the 2FA method at login]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Passkey support in Cloudron 10 works well for me: passwordless login with a Nitrokey, including the PIN prompt, works fine. Thanks!</p>
<p dir="auto">What's missing for hardware keys: each user can only have one passkey and one TOTP (screenshot 1). With hardware keys you normally register at least two, one for daily use and a backup kept somewhere safe. Today, losing that one key means an admin has to reset 2FA.</p>
<p dir="auto">Request:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Multiple passkeys per user.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">A name per key (e.g. "Nitrokey office", "Nitrokey backup"), listed in the profile with date added / last used, and each removable on its own.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">After choosing "security key", a selector to pick the key would be great. If needed, I can provide a login flow from a service that does it nicely.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Keep both login paths as they are: passwordless (FIDO2) with key + PIN, or username/password with TOTP or the key as second factor.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Optional: accounts that use only a hardware/FIDO2 key and have no password at all. Is that possible? Would really be great.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Optional: The login page is good, but a more prominent passkey/FIDO2-only option would be nice.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Somewhat related: <a href="https://forum.cloudron.io/topic/15932/login-with-totp-vs-passkey">https://forum.cloudron.io/topic/15932/login-with-totp-vs-passkey</a></p>
<p dir="auto">Thanks!<br />
Tim</p>
<p dir="auto"><img src="/assets/uploads/files/1793189900372-d7106795-5534-4f06-bde3-ddc906e1f437-image-resized.jpeg" alt="grafik.jpeg" class="img-markdown  img-fluid" width="1327" height="783" /></p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.cloudron.io/topic/16202/multiple-named-security-keys-passkeys-per-user-choosing-the-2fa-method-at-login</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2026 05:51:37 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.cloudron.io/topic/16202.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2026 12:24:52 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Multiple named security keys / passkeys per user + choosing the 2FA method at login on Thu, 29 Oct 2026 09:01:56 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I think supporting more than one does make sense. I will make a work item for this in gitlab so we can add this in some time.</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Why should we leave open the insecure option to login via password?</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">I don't think password login is still open, after entering the username+password it should always ask for the 2fa auth if setup. There is also the passkey option to skip username+password+2fa altogether as passkey can also identify the user, for this you can just click the "Login with passkey" label below the login form.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.cloudron.io/post/132076</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.cloudron.io/post/132076</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[nebulon]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2026 09:01:56 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Multiple named security keys / passkeys per user + choosing the 2FA method at login on Thu, 29 Oct 2026 06:10:53 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Also: shouldn’t we be able to disable login via Password when Passkeys are enabled? Given that Passkeys are much more secure: Why should we leave open the insecure option to login via password?</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.cloudron.io/post/132072</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.cloudron.io/post/132072</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[necrevistonnezr]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2026 06:10:53 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>