4 ms·

What kind of abuse prevention measures does this have in place? As it stands it looks like a super convenient way to scp garbage into other people's computers a

by cfv 10y ago

What kind of abuse prevention measures does this have in place? As it stands it looks like a super convenient way to scp garbage into other people's computers and I'm not sure I'm sold on that.

old-gregg 10y ago
Zero. It's an instant self-configuring SSH server, so the prevention measures are similar as with OpenSSH: if you don't want garbage on your computer, do not add public keys of malicious strangers into your `~/.ssh/authorized_keys` and do not open port 22 to the world! So with Teleconsole, don't invite people you don't trust. :)
kordless 10y ago
You argument is biased and non-factual. Default ssh measures keep un-trusted entities from gaining access, normally. Conversely, once access is granted by the admin to trusted entities, the normal UNIX permissions continue to provide means by which access to the file system is limited by user permissions. Thus, simply by an admin granting access to a system, your (hypothetical) arguments become false and pointless to discuss.
- cfv 10y ago
  You must be kidding me. My "argument " is a question. My "hypotetical arguments" consist of me asking if there is some thing stopping people from scp'ing things to my computer then running them. You talk like phishing and privilege escalation weren't things that exist. Have you ever managed any public-facing service of any importance?
  - kordless 10y ago
    Actually, those types of questions are called leading questions. Making a point based on a hypothetical can not be logically used to make a factual point without it being a bias, even if you phrase it as an "unknown", or question. Your last comment here shows your tendency to blame and use biases for making arguments, which is unfortunate given you appear to be asserting authority on matters of "public facing" servers. You know what they say about making assumptions. I would note that using biased arguments is an inefficient process in most cases. It's akin to recursion of a process which, in my experience, has brought many a more server to its knees than a hypothetical threat from double authorized access (hash + key).
    - cfv 10y ago
      What a bad troll. Try something more subtle next time.

by cfv 10y ago

What kind of abuse prevention measures does this have in place? As it stands it looks like a super convenient way to scp garbage into other people's computers and I'm not sure I'm sold on that.

old-gregg 10y ago

Zero. It's an instant self-configuring SSH server, so the prevention measures are similar as with OpenSSH: if you don't want garbage on your computer, do not add public keys of malicious strangers into your `~/.ssh/authorized_keys` and do not open port 22 to the world! So with Teleconsole, don't invite people you don't trust. :)

kordless 10y ago

You argument is biased and non-factual. Default ssh measures keep un-trusted entities from gaining access, normally. Conversely, once access is granted by the admin to trusted entities, the normal UNIX permissions continue to provide means by which access to the file system is limited by user permissions. Thus, simply by an admin granting access to a system, your (hypothetical) arguments become false and pointless to discuss.

cfv 10y ago
You must be kidding me. My "argument " is a question. My "hypotetical arguments" consist of me asking if there is some thing stopping people from scp'ing things to my computer then running them. You talk like phishing and privilege escalation weren't things that exist. Have you ever managed any public-facing service of any importance?
- kordless 10y ago
  Actually, those types of questions are called leading questions. Making a point based on a hypothetical can not be logically used to make a factual point without it being a bias, even if you phrase it as an "unknown", or question. Your last comment here shows your tendency to blame and use biases for making arguments, which is unfortunate given you appear to be asserting authority on matters of "public facing" servers. You know what they say about making assumptions. I would note that using biased arguments is an inefficient process in most cases. It's akin to recursion of a process which, in my experience, has brought many a more server to its knees than a hypothetical threat from double authorized access (hash + key).
  - cfv 10y ago
    What a bad troll. Try something more subtle next time.