Passwords are the keys to our digital lives—think how many times you log in to websites and other systems. But just like physical keys, they can be lost, duplicated and stolen.

Many alternatives have been proposed in recent years, including passkeys. These offer a significant improvement in terms of user friendliness and potential for widespread use.

But what exactly are they—and how do they differ from passwords?

Passwords are vulnerable

In simple terms, a password is a secret word or phrase that you use to prove who you are to computer systems and/or online. If you have an account on a website or subscribe to a service provider you likely have many.

Passwords themselves are fine; it is the way we implement and use them that makes them vulnerable. For example, weak password habits are everywhere. A CyberNews report from earlier this year identified 94% of 19 billion leaked passwords were re-used. It also identified several similarities in passwords, including strings of numbers such as “123456,” people’s names, cities, popular brands and swear words.

And when a breach occurs, stolen passwords can spread quickly. This leads to accounts being taken over, identity theft and/or phishing attacks. In one experiment, hackers were trying to use leaked credentials within an hour.

Passwords are also vulnerable to phishing, which is when scammers trick you into typing your password (or other information) into a fake account login page. Phishing emails continue to grow in number and consequence with one report indicating more than 3 billion phishing emails sent per day globally.

A good password is unique (that is, never re-used) and complex (imagine a sequence of letters, numbers and symbols such as “e8bh!kXVhccACAP$48yb”). It can also be a unique combination of multiple words to create a phrase or memorable sequence.

This could be difficult to remember, although creating a story that uses the contents of the password might help. For example, say your password was “CrocApplePurseBike.” You could remember it by thinking of the Crocodile that packed its Apple into a Purse before riding a Bike.

What are passkeys and how do they work?

Passkeys first started to emerge roughly four years ago. They use a mathematical process called public-key cryptography to create a unique set of information that is split into two parts—or keys.

One key is public and can be shared with websites; the other is a private key that is stored securely on your device. To sign into an account, the website sends a random challenge (such as a number) and your device uses the private key to “approve” the login request. This approval is usually called “signing” the request and applies a mathematical process to the challenge.

Your device won’t just do this automatically; you will typically be required to approve the request. For many mobile devices this will require your face or fingerprint to be used to authorize the response to be sent.

Finally, the website checks the signature via the public key it already has. If it confirms the challenge, you are in.

Stronger by design

Passkeys are stronger than passwords by design. It doesn’t matter if the public key is stolen, because it cannot be used on its own. Your private keys are safely protected by your device’s security, with most using face or finger-based biometrics to unlock (it is best to avoid relying on a PIN).

Each passkey is also unique for every service you use; even if the key for a site could be stolen, it cannot be used elsewhere.

Another plus is that passkeys are resistant to phishing. From a user perspective, there isn’t a password to send in response to a phishing email. A request to log in on a site has to come from the registered device combined with the approval of the user.

Passkeys are also more convenient than passwords. You don’t have to look for the password you used when you registered—the passkeys are already linked to your device and are only a finger/face verification away.

There are, however, some issues with passkeys. For one, while many browsers, operating systems and websites are embracing passkeys, this isn’t universal. And some early implementations suffered with compatibility between devices (such as between Microsoft and Apple devices).

As users move to newer devices and manufacturers improve integration, these issues should disappear.

A clear winner

From a security point of view, passkeys are the clear winner. They offer stronger protection, can resist phishing and are easier to use. But until passkeys are everywhere, passwords will still play a supporting role.

Implementing passkeys on a website requires effort from the company concerned. With a vast number of sites requiring users to create accounts, the process of migrating them all to passkeys is going to take decades. Many will never adopt the practice unless other factors force their hand.

For now, it’s crucial that we continue to focus on password hygiene by using strong, unique passwords and enabling multi-factor authentication wherever possible. If you do nothing else after reading this article, at least change any re-used passwords.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Compare Top 5 Workout Headphones

Honorable Mentions

We try almost every pair of new workout buds that come out. Here are a few that we also like that didn’t quite earn a space above.

Nwm Go for $100: Stylish Japanese brand Nwm recently launched these open-ear bone conduction headphones that purport to reduce sound leakage, so not everyone can listen to your spicy audiobook on the train. This works, they sound fine and are incredibly light, but they use a proprietary charger and my husband thinks they look like some weird dental device.

Skullcandy Crusher 540 Active for $210: The BlueAnt headphones are just a better buy in all regards, but I enjoyed these a lot. The noise canceling doesn’t work very well, but these headphones are attractive and the bass is astoundingly powerful—my whole head vibrated while listening to Jay-Z at the gym.

JLab Epic Sport ANC 3 for $100: This is the upgraded version of the Go Air Sport above, with hybrid dual drivers for better sound, a higher IP rating, better battery life, and active noise canceling. You need a fully-sealed fit for ANC to be effective, which these don’t have; I can still hear people at the gym when I’m lifting weights. Still, in every other way these headphones meet their promises and they do feel incredibly secure.

H2O Audio Tri 2 Pro Multi-Sport for $200: These are a huge improvement of the first iteration of the brand’s waterproof headphones, with a better fit, better buttons, and a better silicone finish. I also like the charging case! However, they’re pricier than the Shokz and they use a proprietary charger instead of USB-C, which is annoying.

Nothing Open Earbuds for $100: These are some of the slimmest buds I’ve tested and they fit well under layers of hoods, helmets, and hats.

Anker Soundcore AeroFit 2 for $100: I like the price, the beautiful colors, and the sound is great. However, they are a little bulkier than some of our other picks and the fit a little less secure.

JLab JBuds Mini for $40: If I were spending my own money, I would buy a pair of JLab workout buds and be done with it. I raved about these cute, tiny buds last year and they are also in our Best Wireless Earbuds guide.

Suunto Sonic for $129: If you want to try a neckband-style headphone like the Shokz above, but for cheaper, Sawh also likes these lightweight headphones with a balanced sound profile.

Shokz Openrun Pro for $160: These headphones still work perfectly well and are smaller than the new version. There’s also a mini version ($130) where the neckband is almost an inch shorter, which I like, because I am smol.

Speck Gemtones Sport for $70: These are cheap and fit well. The buttons are a little too sensitive, and the sound is noticeably fuzzier than most of our other picks, but they’re not bad.

Dishonorable Mentions

There’s nothing more annoying than carving out some time in your day for a workout, getting out the door, and realizing that you can’t listen to your fun podcast because your headphones are glitching out. These are the ones I hated.

Photograph: Amazon

Raycon Bone Conduction Headphones for $85: I have no idea if these sound good, because they pressed directly on top of my ear canal, where they buzzed the flesh of my eardrums and not my bones. It was unbearable.

Skullcandy Method 360 ANC for $100: The case is huge, the buds are big and awkward, and noise canceling works not at all.

Anker Soundcore C40i for $100: These fulfilled all my worst imaginings about open-ear buds; they fell out before I’d run a block down my street. I put them in my pocket and didn’t wear them again for the rest of the run.

1More Fit Open for $130: Don’t buy these. They sound OK, but the buttons are so sensitive that I couldn’t run for more than five minutes without a song skipping or the music turning off.

Suunto Wing for $200: These look very nice and come with a bunch of thoughtful accessories, like a carrying case and a charging holder. But they sound way too tinny for this price.

FAQs

Why are the young ones plugging their headphones in?

Earbuds are amazingly convenient, but Bluetooth pairing can be wonky, and I always seem to drop one out at the most inconvenient times. To plug your headphones in, you’ll either need a headphone jack adapter or a phone with a headphone jack.

Why can’t I work out in my regular headphones?

You spent hundreds of dollars on your Sony WH-1000XM6, why wouldn’t you just wear them to work out? Sweat has salt and minerals that can corrode ear cups, especially if they’re made from premium materials, like leather. You’re also out and about in the world, encountering rain and other cold, hot, or humid environments that aren’t great for delicate drivers and other headphone components. No one’s telling you you can’t work out in regular headphones, but if you consider yours precious, it’s worth getting another pair that you won’t mind getting damaged.

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.

As electronic devices become increasingly powerful and compact, they can generate denser heat fluxes, or in other words, produce more heat in a smaller area. These heat fluxes raise the temperature of a device and can damage its underlying components, causing them to malfunction and, in time, even contributing to their failure.

To prevent this from happening, electronics engineers rely on thermal management systems and cooling strategies. A promising strategy to dissipate heat in smaller electronics is known as microfluidic cooling. This technique prompts the flow of fluids through microscopic channels that are built into or in the proximity of integrated circuits, to remove heat and reduce the temperature inside a device.

Researchers at Peking University, the National Key Laboratory of Advanced Micro and Nano Manufacture Technology recently introduced a new microfluidic cooling approach that could remove heat from devices more effectively and efficiently than many previously introduced strategies. This approach, outlined in a paper published in Nature Electronics, relies on a newly developed three-layer microfluidic cooling device etched into a silicon substrate.

“The miniaturization of advanced electronics can lead to high heat fluxes, which must be dissipated before they cause device degradation or failure,” Zhihu Wu, Wei Xiao and their colleagues wrote in their paper. “Embedded microfluidic cooling is of potential value in such systems, but devices are typically limited to heat fluxes below 2,000 W cm⁻². We report a microfluidic cooling strategy that can dissipate heat fluxes up to 3,000 W cm⁻² at a pumping power of only 0.9 W cm⁻² using single-phase water as the coolant.”

The cooling device developed by Wu, Xiao and their colleagues has a three-layer structure. The first layer is comprised of a tapered manifold, which distributes water across the surface of a chip and ensures that each microchannel receives an equal amount of coolant so that a device is uniformly cooled.

The middle layer, known as the microjet layer, consists of tiny nozzles that form microjets (i.e., high-speed streams of fluid that shoot directly onto a chip’s surface), improving the transfer of heat in devices by targeting the thermal boundary (i.e., the region where heat builds up). The third and final layer is comprised of microchannels, tiny grooves etched into silicon that carry the warm coolant out of an integrated chip.

“Our approach is based on a three-tier structure that consists of a tapered manifold layer on the top, a microjet layer in the middle and a microchannel layer with sawtooth-shaped sidewalls at the bottom,” Wu, Xiao and their colleagues wrote. “The structures are etched directly into the backside of the silicon substrate using standard microelectromechanical system technology. Moreover, the coefficient of performance can reach 13,000 and dissipate a heat flux of 1,000 W cm⁻² at a maximum chip temperature rise of 65 K.”

In initial tests, the new microfluidic cooling approach proposed by these researchers was found to remove heat significantly more effectively than most previously introduced strategies. In addition, the team’s three-layered device requires little pumping power (0.9 W/cm²) to cool chips and could be fabricated on a large-scale using existing manufacturing processes.

In the future, the recent work by Wu, Xiao and his colleagues could support the development of smaller electronic devices that are also durable, highly performing and energy efficient. Moreover, their proposed cooling device could soon be improved and evaluated further in tests with a wider range of small electronics.

© 2025 Science X Network