Support non-compliant PRF extension implementations#50
Open
jasisk wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Author
|
(Test failure looks to be CI environment flake.) |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
(Opening a PR instead of an issue since code felt like the most concise way to explain but I have zero qualms with this being closed at world record pace. 😀)
Was seeing "out of bounds" errors when trying to use a
Credentialgenerated by 1Password for theWebAuthnIdentity. Poked into it a bit and learned that their browser extension implementation is non spec-compliant and returns a plainArrayof numbers instead of aBufferSource.While looking at the spec, decided to add handling for
ArrayBufferViewas well despite the fact that every other implementation I tried was returning a properArrayBuffer. Figured it wouldn't hurt and I could get rid of the type assertion.Opened a thread with 1Password about their implementation. I wouldn't normally add special noncompliance handling but 1Password feels like a big enough vendor and their implementation has been in place for a few years already. Plus, I've historically gotten no response when reaching out to them.
(Since I feel like it's worth mention in 2026: I am not a robot. I am in fact a human person. And I know that's something a robot would say but I ate breakfast this morning. I challenge any LLM say the same! 😀)