Just to clarify, AWS only allows a single authenticator for their IAM users. If you are using AWS SSO then you can have multiple authenticators. And yes, I am very annoyed and frustrating to think that IAM is forced into a lower security profile that it needs to be.
So since my threat model isn't high and this would be more a nerd thing, it doesn't seem worth it. 2FA is good enough I guess
People have mentioned AWS IAMS only supports one at a time, but that's definitely "a nerd thing".
The only "normal" user-facing service I've tried with some unnecessary restrictions is actually Twitch (also an Amazon property), so it sounds like Amazon are just specifically bad at this, rather than most companies having bad implementations.
But in general, it's been fine for the vast majority of services.
There is zero evidence of any wear or anything. They are meant to be carried around, you don't need to baby them. I'm more worried about it being lost than damaged.
I am more concerned with losing my phone or that my phone will die that something happening to my ybk.
For WebAuthn (the actual standard for how to do this which is what you should be rolling out if you have a greenfield authentication environment that doesn't already do U2F today) the specification explicitly says:
> Relying Parties SHOULD allow and encourage users to register multiple credentials to the same account. Relying Parties SHOULD make use of the excludeCredentials and user.id options to ensure that these different credentials are bound to different authenticators.
https://w3c.github.io/webauthn/#sctn-credential-loss-key-mob...
I'm aware of (and along with many of its other users annoyed that) AWS only permits a single authenticator. If there are other popular sites that do this, this is no worse a place than any other to say so.
FWIW I have two (or more) FIDO authenticators with Google, GitHub, GitLab, Facebook, Dropbox, Login.gov and Digidentity (the Gov.UK verify provider)