[swinglock]

But then again, getting someone to run a script is "local code execution" so it really doesn't matter how SSH is configured, the compromise was already once the user ran a malicious script. What comes after is not so interesting.

[LinuxBender]

I mostly agree. This just makes the attack substantially easier and removes all remote logging of the access. As far as the investigators will see, the victim of the attack performed the malicious behavior. Hopefully the edge firewall in front of the developer logs all outbound connections and who owns the IP at the time and hopefully they are not working from home/remote, or they have a corporate VPN that logs all outbound connections.

If I phish you and you run a script, but multiplexing is disabled, then I have to take a few extra steps on your machine to capture passwords assuming you have passwords set on your ssh keys. It also means I have to initiate a new connection rather than using your existing ssh channels. Depending on the environment and your laptop configuration, this may or may not increase my risk of being detected. This of course highly depends on what level of logging and remote monitoring of your laptop is in place.

[kerng]

What comes after is the interesting part. Because that's where the attacker will try to gain access to production and the clock for response and blue team for detection and eviction starts ticking.

Assume Breach mindset that Microsoft developed for instance - in case you are intersted to learn more. There is an entire domain/world of security engineering that starts when the initial compromise has happened. And it does/should not mean the adversary won, just because they have code execution on one host.

[swinglock]

If a malicious user gained access to your machine, how SSH is configured isn't interesting. If you use that machine to connect to other machines, the attacker will be able to as well, regardless of how SSH was configured at the time.

Heck, the attacker prefers a certain SSH config, the attacker could just change it. Even if you disabled the feature at compile time, the attacker could just replace the SSH command in your shell with their preferred version.

This is just disabling useful features to maybe cause minor inconvenience. I find it about as interesting as telling someone to pull out the power cord of their monitor to increase security of their login prompt screen.

[kerng]

How machines are configured is very interesting, as adversaries make mistakes, and cam trigger detection for suspicious behavior. There is an entire security field that is concerned about what happens after a breach.

Coinbase recently had a very interesting article/blog post about something similar, how adversaries gained access to engineering hosts and how they detected it.

Of course how much you lock something down depends on the critically of an asset and so forth. E.g. in certain high security facilities slight variations of your monitor example are applicable.

[swinglock]

That's a good point. If the attacker changes configuration or drops binaries, they make noise instead of living off the land care free, which make them easier to detect. I see.