패스키 are not the only 비밀번호 없는 인증 method available. This article compares 패스키 with other alternatives to help you choose the right approach for your needs.

패스키 vs. Hardware Security Keys

Hardware security keys like YubiKey and Google Titan are physical devices that provide strong two-factor 인증. Compared to 패스키, hardware keys offer maximum security since the private key never leaves the physical device. They are ideal for high-risk users like journalists, executives, or IT administrators.

However, hardware keys have drawbacks. They cost money (typically $25-$70 each), can be lost, and require a USB or NFC port. 패스키 are free and always available on your device. For most users, 패스키 provide sufficient security with greater convenience.

패스키 vs. SMS Two-Factor 인증

SMS-based 인증 is still widely used but is increasingly considered insecure. SIM swapping attacks allow criminals to hijack phone numbers and intercept SMS codes. The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) has deprecated SMS as an out-of-band verification method.

패스키 are dramatically more secure than SMS codes since they are immune to SIM swapping and phishing. The only advantage of SMS is that it requires no special hardware or software setup.

패스키 vs. Authenticator Apps

Apps like Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator, and Authy generate time-based one-time passwords (TOTP). These are more secure than SMS but still vulnerable to phishing—if a user enters a TOTP code on a fake website, attackers can use it immediately.

패스키 eliminate this phishing vector entirely since 인증 is cryptographically bound to the specific site. Authenticator apps remain a good second factor for services that do not yet support 패스키.

패스키 vs. Biometric-Only 인증

Some systems use biometrics alone without cryptographic key pairs. These systems store biometric templates on servers, creating privacy risks if breached. 패스키 use biometrics only to unlock the private key stored locally, meaning biometric data never leaves your device.

패스키 vs. 비밀번호 Managers

비밀번호 managers like 1Password or Bitwarden generate and store strong passwords. They are much better than reusing passwords but still require you to enter passwords into browser fields, which can be intercepted by keyloggers or compromised browser extensions.

패스키 eliminate 비밀번호 entry entirely. However, 비밀번호 managers remain essential for services that do not yet support 패스키. Many 비밀번호 managers are now adding 패스키 support, blurring the line between the two approaches.

Summary

패스키 offer the best balance of security and convenience for most users. A practical approach is to use 패스키 where supported, hardware keys for critical accounts, and a 비밀번호 manager for the rest.