| |
| ▲ | otterley 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is what agents are for. You load your private key into an agent so you don't have to enter your passphrase every time you use it. Agents are supposed to be hardened so that your private key can't be easily exfiltrated from them. You can then configure `ssh` to pass requests through the agent. There are lots of agents out there, from the basic `ssh-agent`, to `ssh-agent` integrated with the MacOS keychain (which automatically unlocks when you log in), to 1Password (which is quite nice!). | | |
| ▲ | mr_mitm 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is a good defense for malware that only has read access to the filesystem or a stolen hard drive scenario without disk encryption, but does nothing against the compromised dev machine scenario. | | |
| ▲ | tharkun__ 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This seems to be the standard thing people miss. All the things that make security more convenient also make it weaker. They boast about how "doing thing X" makes them super secure, pat on the back and done. Completely ignoring other avenues they left open. A case like this brings this out a lot. Compromised dev machine means that anything that doesn't require a separate piece of hardware that asks for your interaction is not going to help. And the more interactions you require for tightening security again the more tedious it becomes and you're likely going to just instinctively press the fob whenever it asks. Sure, it raises the bar a bit because malware has to take it into account and if there are enough softer targets they may not have bothered. This time. Classic: you only have to outrun the other guy. Not the lion. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | See my comment above; not every SSH agent is alike. | | |
| ▲ | tharkun__ 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which one? Like, I see the comment about the Keychain integration and all that. But in the end I fail to see (without further explanation but I'm eager to learn if there's something I am unaware of) where this isn't different from what I am saying. Like yes, my ssh key has a passphrase of course. Which is different from my system one actually. As soon as I log into the system I add the key, which means entering the passphrase once, so I don't have to enter it all the time. That would get old real fast. But now ssh can just use my key to do stuff and the agent doesn't know if it's me or I got compromised by npm installing something. And if you add a hardware token you "just have to tap" each time that's a step back into more security but does add tedium. Depending on how often my workflow uses ssh (or something that uses the key) in the background this will become something most people just blindly "tap" on. And then we are back towards less security but with more setup steps, complications and tedium. I saw the "or allow for a session", which is a step towards security again, because I may be able to allow a script that does several things with ssh with a single tap, which is great of course. Hopefully that cuts the taps down so much that I don't just blindly tap on every request for it. Like the 1password thing you mentioned. If I do lots of things that make it "ask again" often enough I get pushed into "yeah yeah, I know the drill, just tap" security hole. |
|
| |
| ▲ | otterley 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Keep in mind that not every agent is so naive as to allow a local client to connect to it without reauthenticating somehow. 1Password, for example, will, for each new application, pop up a fingerprint request on my Mac before handling the connection request and allow additional requests for a configurable period of time -- and, by default, it will lock the agent when you lock your machine. It will also request authentication before allowing any new process to make the first connection. See e.g. https://developer.1password.com/docs/ssh/agent/security |
|
| |
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You memorize it, or keep it in 1Password. 1Password can manage your SSH keys, and 1Password can/does require a password, so it's still protected with something you know + something you have. | |
| ▲ | fwip 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | One option is to remember it. | | |
| ▲ | nottorp 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think that’s considered secure enough, see the other answers and the push for passkeys. I mean, if passphrases were good for anything you’d directly use them for the ssh connection? :) | | |
| ▲ | otterley 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Passphrases, when strong enough, are fine when they are not traversing a medium that can be observed by a third party. They're not recommended for authenticating a secure connection over a network, but they’re fine for unlocking a much longer secret that cannot be cracked via guessing, rainbow tables, or other well known means. Hell, most people unlock their phones with a 4 digit passcode, and their computers with a passphrase. |
|
|
|
