[gunapologist99]

> Creating keys on remote dev envs for git operations is _less_ secure than agent forwarding, even when those keys are encrypted (passphrase protected) at rest, because they have to be loaded into memory on the (potentially compromised) remote host.

That's not how agent forwarding works. An attacker on the remote server can piggyback on your SSH session and do anything else desired, so your remote git repo is still compromised, but the blast radius of these remote keys is much smaller. (in infosec, we'd usually call this least privilege but separation of duties also applies)

All of this is still possible even with gpg-agent, even if this particular RCE doesn't apply to you, so "Never Use Agent Forwarding" still applies.

[pritambaral]

> An attacker on the remote server can piggyback on your SSH session and do anything else desired

This myth is about 20 years out of date. See what the '-c' flag for ssh-add does. It was added in OpenSSH 3.6 back in 2003.

In fact, I can prove it to you. Take my pubkey from GitHub (same username) and put it on a host you control. Tell me to ssh into it with my agent forwarded and see if that gives you access to my GitHub account.

----

> All of this is still possible even with gpg-agent

Even without the 'confirm each use' flag, gpg-agent with a zero TTL visually asks for the decryption key on each use. There _are_ some agents out there that have no support for visual confirmations and yet happily accept the '-c' flag (looking at you, GNOME), but gpg-agent isn't one of them.

----

> That's not how agent forwarding works

You seem to be misreading. I'm not claiming that's how agent forwarding works. I'm saying that's how your suggestion of creating a keypair on a remote host works.

It _is_ less secure because it requires those keys to be resident on the remote. If the remote is compromised, decrypting the key in the compromised machine's memory is strictly insecure compared to doing it on my local machine with an agent. Once captured from the compromised remote, those keys can be exfiltrated and used repeatedly. But, if an agent is somehow tricked into signing an unauthorised request, that access is still limited to one use only.

[gunapologist99]

>> > An attacker on the remote server can piggyback on your SSH session and do anything else desired

> This myth is about 20 years out of date.

This hole didn't simply disappear when -c was added.

The vulnerability is simply that the socket file containing the connection back to your agent is accessible by anyone who managed to escalate to root on the remote host.

You're making several assumptions:

#1: someone is using -c

#2: that -c even does anything on their platform

#3: the user pays attention to them and is untrickable

#4: there are no bugs in the ssh-agent or gpg-agent on the client machine

Any one of these being false renders all protection from -c moot; worse yet, a bug in the ssh-agent (or gpg-agent, if that's your poison) like the one in the subject of this post can be leveraged into complete client takeover.

> Once captured from the compromised remote, those keys can be exfiltrated and used repeatedly.

that is true, which is why they should be tightly scoped.

> But, if an agent is somehow tricked into signing an unauthorised request, that access is still limited to one use only.

That one use only is all that is needed. An attacker might install another pubkey, start up another socket process, or even rootkit the remote box if you have sudo, doas or if there are any privilege escalation vulns.

These situations are identical in that the remote box is pwned, but only one of these tries to limit the exploits to just that one remote box and not every other host your keys have access to.

[pritambaral]

> This hole didn't simply disappear when -c was added. The vulnerability is simply that ...

Why are you conflating the two? You're making claims that sth has always been utterly, completely broken, and the only evidence you can cite for it is sth that was revealed to the world a few days ago?

This CVE is a secvuln. No one is arguing against that. Secvulns happen. No software is bug-free. Does that mean every software everywhere is suddenly utterly completely broken?

Actually, while we are on the topic, why not argue banning SSH entirely. After all, each SSH connection is a connection back to the host where the `ssh` client runs. Tomorrow, there could be a secvuln discovered in the `ssh` binary that can be exploited by simply printing the right characters to stdout. In fact, this very vector has been used before to pwn vulnerable terminal emulators, even over ssh.

----

> ... which is why they should be tightly scoped.

As can forwarded agents (see 'IdentityAgent' in `man ssh_config`). In fact, this is how I separate client projects from each other and my personal projects. (I didn't do it for security, rather for the convenience of not tripping any 'max keys allowed' limits, but hey, I'll take the security benefit too!)

----

> That one use only is all that is needed. ... tries to limit the exploits to just that one remote box and not every other host your keys have access to.

You're making several assumptions:

#1: someone is disciplined enough to use tightly scoped keys

#2: that they bother to rotate all those ephemeral keys without fail

#3: that the sheer inconvenience of constantly updating keys doesn't bother them enough to say 'screw this!'

Guess what the weakest link is when it comes to computer security? The human factor. You're asking humans to go through way too much hassle they're not going to care about. Which means they'll voluntarily break the security of the system without care (and, of course, without understanding).

You also forget that:

1. Agents can be scoped too.

2. Jumpboxes are often used to jump to a large number (most often, all) of servers. No organization is going around creating point-to-point jump links between servers or dedicating a separate jumpbox for every destination server.

3. Your model, when exploited, gives the attacker repeatable, lasting access. You say, "That one use only is all that is needed", and you're correct, but only for the most determined and prepared attackers. Once-only accidental access is better than repeatable lasting access for the simple fact that most attackers are aiming for only the latter.

4. Your model is also more susceptible to silent persistent malware. My method has the benefit that exploited remotes are discovered before the exploit is given lateral movement access.

----

> ... who managed to escalate to root on the remote host.

No root needed. DAC enough. I say this because I run untrusted code in VMs/containers I ssh into, with my agent forwarded. And I consider arbitrary npm/python/etc. packages automatically untrusted.