We/Nitrokey are in the process of getting a FIDO certification. We passed the interoperability test, submitted all requested answers and are currently waiting for FIDO Alliance’s response. We hope that this won’t take long anymore.
For completeness, SoloKeys got their Solo 1 FIDO certified but not their latest Solo 2.
We could add Nitrokey back when it got certificated. This won’t hurt much.
Well, I prefer not to go back and forth on these things if we can help it.
There must be a misunderstanding here. I am using nitrokey both with Apple and Microsoft. There is no specific sign in to Microsoft Entra, to my knowledge. If you have privileges given by your organisation in MS 365 environment, then you can access it.
I have not checked what nitrokey does not meet in that criteria, btw.
The problem isn’t that it can’t meet the criteria, the criteria is not very stringent (at least the base Level 1 criteria).
The problem is that services you use the key with can check whether the key is certified, and block keys which aren’t. As one example, some Nitrokey users report incompatibility with the Czech Republic’s online government services:
just stop quoting me man . if you had seen ,clearly jonah had answered that for me , so you don’t need quote members for same thing. Its just annoying.
So why isn’t Nitrokey removed anyway?
Why do you want to get it removed so badly? 
Ig if they deliver, they are the best cass case scenerio
Cause Nitrokey are so terrible that cannot pass certification in nearly 2 years. I really doubt the necessity of my contributing to the PG if my reason is so valid but no changes applied. Especially there’s no obvious reason to reject removing it.
In this pr @jonah just say he decided to keep Nitrokey without any explanation. I know all changes to PG have to be approved by some core members but they are not always right. This is not ok imo
Be patient, we do not rush decisions here.
We take the time to discuss and evaluate.
It was closed to split up Create new "Hardware" section by jonaharagon · Pull Request #2594 · privacyguides/privacyguides.org · GitHub and Remove Nitrokey by jonaharagon · Pull Request #2602 · privacyguides/privacyguides.org · GitHub into two separate PRs.
Presently, Nitrokey continues to meet all PG criteria for hardware security keys. It is necessary to deliberate whether these criteria should be revised, and to what degree such revisions should be implemented. Additionally, the inclusion of FIDO Alliance certification as a criterion for PG recommendations requires evaluation. This consideration is logical and warranted to me.
Furthermore, it is imperative to identify and discuss suitable alternatives that at least meet PG’s minimum criteria before removing an option. The objective is not to endorse a single product within the security keys category, especially given the current scarcity of open-source alternatives to Nitrokey. Once these deliberations are complete, we can then decide on the potential removal of Nitrokey from the recommendations.
It is also important to note that, according to the latest information from Nitrokey, the certification process is expected to be completed soon [1].
There is no immediate necessity to expedite the process.
Thanks for the reply but this is not satisfying to me, along with the new Windows Guide. I guess I’m leaving PG community now.
How people can just barge in here and expect us to immideatly comply with their demands (even if they bring in an interesting point we are willing to discuss), is beyond me.