[tialaramex]

One completely awful thing some scanners might choose to do is if you're offering RSA auth (which most SSH servers are and indeed the SecSH RFC says this is Mandatory To Implement) then you're "potentially vulnerable" which would encourage people to do password auth instead.

Unless we find that this problem has somehow infested a lot of real world systems that seems to me even worse than the time similar "experts" decided that it was best to demand people rotate their passwords every year or so thereby ensuring the real security is reduced while on paper you claim you improved it.

[danparsonson]

Have to admit I've never understood why password auth is considered so much worse than using a cert - surely a decent password (long, random, etc) is for all practical purposes unguessable, and so you're either using a private RSA key that no-one can guess, or a password that no-one can guess, and then what's the difference? With the added inconvenience of having to pass around a certificate if you want to login to the same account from from multiple sources.

[teraflop]

One of the biggest differences is that if you're using password auth, and you are tricked into connecting to a malicious server, that server now has your plaintext password and can impersonate you to other servers.

If you use a different strong random password for every single server, this attack isn't a problem, but that adds a lot of management hassle compared to using a single private key. (It's also made more difficult by host key checking, but let's be honest, most of us don't diligently check the fingerprints every single time we get a mismatch warning.)

In contrast, if you use an SSH key, then a compromised server never actually gets a copy of your private key unless you explicitly copy it over. (If you're have SSH agent forwarding turned on, then during the compromised connection, the server can run a "confused deputy" attack to authenticate other connections using your agent's identity. But it loses that ability when you disconnect.)

[droopyEyelids]

Not a rhetorical question: couldn't the malicious server relay the challenge from a valid server for to you to sign, and impersonate you that way?

[djao]

If a man in the middle relays a public key challenge, that will indeed result in a valid connection, but the connection will be encrypted such that only the endpoints (or those who possess a private key belonging to one of the endpoints) can read the resulting traffic. So the man in the middle is simply relaying an encrypted conversation and has no visibility into the decrypted contents.

The man in the middle can still perform denial of service, by dropping some or all of the traffic.

The man in the middle could substitute their own public key in place of one of the endpoint's public keys, but if each endpoint knows the other endpoint's key and is expecting that other key, then an unexpected substitute key will raise a red flag.

[kortilla]

No, these schemes use the pub/private keys to setup symmetric crypto, so just passing it along does you no good because what follows is a bunch of stuff encrypted by a session key only the endpoints know.

If I am a server and have your public key in an authorized_keys file, I can just encrypt a random session key using that and only you will be able to decrypt it to finish setting up the session.

This is why passwords and asymmetric crypto are worlds apart in security guarantees.

[someplaceguy]

> if you're using password auth, and you are tricked into connecting to a malicious server, that server now has your plaintext password and can impersonate you to other servers.

Why would the password be sent in plaintext instead of, say, sending a hash of the password calculated with a salt that is unique per SSH server? Or something even more cryptographically sound.

In fact, passwords in /etc/shadow already do have random salts, so why aren't these sent over to the SSH client so it can send a proper hash instead of the plaintext password?

[danparsonson]

If the hash permits a login then having a hash is essentially equivalent to having a password. The malicious user wouldn't be able to use it to sudo but they could deploy some other privilege escalation once logged in.

[djao]

It's a little bit more complicated than just sending a hash of the password, but there are ways to authenticate using hashed passwords without sending the password over the wire, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digest_access_authentication or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password-authenticated_key_agr...

Even so, these protocols require the server to know your actual password, not just a hash of the password, even though the password itself never traverses the network. So a compromised server can still lead to a compromised credential, and unless you use different passwords for every server, we're back to the same problem.

[tialaramex]

Asymmetric PAKEs don't require the server to know your password. You and the server need to have a discussion to establish some parameters that work for your chosen password, without revealing what it is, and then in future you can supply evidence that you indeed know the password (that is, some value which satisfies the agreed parameters), still without revealing what it is. This is not easy to do correctly, whereas it's really easy to get it wrong...

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-opaque/

[duskwuff]

> Have to admit I've never understood why password auth is considered so much worse than using a cert

Password auth involves sending your credentials to the server. They're encrypted, but not irreversibly; the server needs your plaintext username and password to validate them, and it can, in principle, record them to be reused elsewhere.

Public key and certificate-based authentication only pass your username and a signature to the server. Even if you don't trust the server you're logging into, it can't do anything to compromise other servers that key has access to.

[bostik]

> surely a decent password (long, random, etc) is for all practical purposes unguessable

Sadly that is not how normies use passwords. WE know what passwords managers are for. Vast majority of people outside our confined sphere do not.

In short: password rotation policies make passwords overall less secure, because in order to remember what the new password is, people apply patterns. Patterns are guessable. Patterns get applied to future password as well. This has been known to the infosec people since 1990's because they had to understand how people actually behave. It took a research paper[0], published in 2010, to finally provide sufficient data for that fact to become undeniable.

It still took another 6-7 years until the information percolated through to the relevant regulatory bodies and for them to update their previous guidance. These days both NIST and NCSC tell in very clear terms to not require password rotation.

0: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221517955_The_true_...

[dboreham]

It depends what happens to the password. Typically it's sent as a bearer credential. But there are auth schemes (not widely used these days) where the password isn't sent over the wire.

[djao]

Even if you use a scheme where the password never traverses the wire, the schemes still require the server to know what your password is in order to perform the authentication. So a compromised server still leads to compromise of your secret credential. Public key authentication does not have this property.

[solardev]

Isn't it pretty standard practice to salt and hash the password client-side before sending it over the wire?

[cayde]

No, usually it's sent in plain text to the server, however encapsulated.

[solardev]

Wow, really? Ten years ago, it was drilled into me to never send a password like that, especially since the server shouldn't have the plain version anyway (so no reason for the client to send it).

https://owasp.org/www-community/OWASP_Application_Security_F... says "Salted hash for transmitting passwords is a good technique. This ensures that the password can not be stolen even if the SSL key is broken."

I didn't want to believe you, but man, I just checked a few websites in the network inspector... and it seems like GMail, Hackernews, Wordpress, Wix, and Live.com all just sent it in plaintext with only SSL encryption :(

That's a bit disappointing. But TIL. Thanks for letting me know!

[cayde]

If you want to hop into a rabbit hole, try taking look in Steam's login send the user and pass))

If TLS break then all is untrusted anyway! If you read hash as MITM you can replay it as pass equivalent and log in with hash, do not need knowledge of the original pass. You can just inject the script to exfilatrate original pass before hashing. CSP is broken, since you can edit header to give your own script a inline nonce. I think everything is reliant on TLS in end.

I think 10yr ago before TLS was 99%+ standard on all sites many people would come up with schemes, forums would md5 pass client side and send md5, all sorts were common. But now trust is in TLS.

[hwaccel]

> Salted hash for transmitting passwords is a good technique. This ensures that the password can not be stolen even if the SSL key is broken

I'm a little confused with this recommendation

How server is supposed to verify user's password in this case? Store the same hash with exactly the same salt in the database, effectively making the transmitted salted hash a cleartext password?

[ahmedtd]

That page seems to be a community wiki, and I think the original authors are somewhat confused on that point.

If you salt and hash the password on the client side, how is the server going to verify the password. Everything I can think of either requires the server to store the plaintext password (bad) or basically makes the hashed bytes become the plaintext password (pointless).

There are password-based solutions that work like this --- PAKEs like Secure Remote Passwords: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2945.txt

They have low uptake because they don't really offer any security beyond just sending the plaintext password over a properly-functioning TLS channel.

[kortilla]

It doesn’t actually do anything because if SSL is compromised then all of the junk you think you are telling the client to do to the password is via JavaScript that is also compromised.

If you’re worried about passive listeners with ssl private keys, perfect forward secrecy at the crypto layer solved that a long time ago.

For browsers at least, sending passwords plainly over a tls session is as good as it gets.

[jbverschoor]

That's exactly the case with HTTP credentials and most authentication frameworks...

[zygentoma]

No. Everything you do on the client side you can also keep not doing at all.

You can imagine the salted and hashed password in your scheme to be "the password". Because the server will still know it, and could use it to log in somewhere else (it just has to skip the salt-and-hash step).

[imrehg]

On that last point, I wouldn't pass around the certificate to log in from multiple sources, rather each source would have its own certificate. That is easy & cheap to do (especially with ed25519 certs).

[danparsonson]

Ah right, that's useful, thanks. Presumably if you need to login from an untrusted source (e.g. in an emergency), then you're out of luck in that case? Do you maybe keep an emergency access cert stashed somewhere?

[imrehg]

That's a very good question. Likely depends on the circumstances. I don't quite know any ways of using untrusted sources safely. Maybe something where you can use temporary credentials (say 2FA), or the the likes of using AWS's EC2 Instance Connect, but there's always a problem of _something_ has to be on an untrusted location, I guess?

Having some emergency access certs in a password manager might be a good backup (and rotating it after using it on an untrusted source?).

The best way is, however, removing the need in emergencies to access a machine (e.g. more of the "cattle vs pets" way of thinking). But that's hard for sure.

[danparsonson]

> ...rotating it after using it on an untrusted source?...

> ...the "cattle vs pets" way of thinking...

Good points both... To the former, of course you're right that once used, an emergency cert should be replaced, which could be onerous either from the point of view of having double the number of certs to manage (rather than one master key), or else having to rotate the master key on all servers. To the latter, I'm definitely thinking about pets, so I hadn't considered just throwing away the VM and starting again; that neatly sidesteps the issue.

Thanks!

[Too]

A lot of it has to do with centralizing administration. If you have more than one server and more than one user, certificates reduce a NxM problem into N+M instead.

Certificates can be revoked, they can have short expiry dates and due to centralized administration, renewing them is not terribly inconvenient.

On top of that they are a lot more difficult to read over the shoulder, to some degree that can be considered the second factor in a MFA scheme. Same reasons why passkeys are preferred over passwords lately. Not as secure as a HW-key, still miles better than “hunter2”.

[computerfriend]

I sometimes ask this as an interview question. Hardly anybody knows the answer.

[sureglymop]

So don't you want to enlighten us with the answer?

[computerfriend]

The enlightenment has happened in the other comments, but the summary is:

* this enforces high entropy,

* the password is transmitted to the server, the private key is not.

[denysvitali]

The difference, IMHO, is that it's easier to pick an easy guessable password than it is to create an insecure RSA key (on purpose).