5 ms·

I don't want to be cynical. There is probably lots and lots of work being put in this project, but.... The business idea is basically this: hand me your credit

by cntlzw 8y ago

I don't want to be cynical. There is probably lots and lots of work being put in this project, but.... The business idea is basically this: hand me your credit card, I go to your favorite ATM, get some money and hand it to you. It is great service! Yes, a great service for some, but why would I give the most sensible credentials I own to a third-party? SSH tries to avoid man-in-the-middle attack. This is a man-in-the-middle attack as a service.

vectorEQ 8y ago
i do want to be cynical: sed -i -e 's/#Port 22/Port 443/g' /etc/ssh/sshd_config on a more serious note, as you described but maybe from a more grumpy person: i don't think it's a great service, as it just compromises credentials by default while a normal configuration could solve it. if the server is also hosting some https website, then put it on an alternate ipv6 address (they are free if not cheap) and ssh into that. you only need to edit 2 files on your server for that to work :s why pay 5$ a month if you already have a capable server you are paying for?? the promise of not storing credentials etc. is nice, but if your servers are compromised it will be childsplay for efarious people to intercept them even if you didn't design that aspect to happen in the service design.
- michaelmior 8y ago
  > a normal configuration could solve it Could you explain what you mean by this? I get not everyone wants this, but just making SSH listen on port 443 doesn't give you access on a computer without an SSH client.
  - awill 8y ago
    correct. You still need a client. The Op is probably referring to getting around firewall restrictions. Some companies block all outbound ports except p80 and p443, so if you work at such a company, you can't access your personal machine over p22. Shellvault lets you do that on p443. But so does changing your SSH server to listen on p443. A self hosted version of this might make a little more sense. However, it is still putting all your credentials in one place.
    - pmalynin 8y ago
      I mean there is also Teleport (Gravitational) that you could self host and get around most of those issues.
- icebraining 8y ago
  > if the server is also hosting some https website, then put it on an alternate ipv6 address (they are free if not cheap) and ssh into that. There's also sslh, which can multiplex the same port by detecting whether the incoming connection is TLS or SSH, and forwarding appropriately. It's pretty cool: https://www.rutschle.net/tech/sslh/README.html https://www.rutschle.net/tech/sslh/README.html That said, I think this service is for people who need to use computers without ssh clients installed locally.
  - vectorEQ 8y ago
    its funny this came to my mind thinking about it but i wasn't aware it already existed. thanks for that.
- progval 8y ago
  > if the server is also hosting some https website, then put it on an alternate ipv6 address Or use sslh if you're stuck on IPv4
angerson 8y ago
Many other commenters have expressed similar misgivings, but I'll respond to this top-rated one so that I don't pollute the thread. First, thanks for your brutality. It's good to know that a service like this (which deals with such sensitive content) is treated suspiciously at first. Second, a few commenters have shown that it may be possible to reduce the MitM aspect by pushing more work into the browser with a method that could also provide end to end encryption. We're going to look into this thoroughly because we thought it was impossible at first, but I'm also curious if that would change your mind at all about using the service. At the very least, it would improve our users' security, so we're still going to see if we can do it. Third, I do want to emphasize that we encourage users to create multiple keys to use, so that they have lots of power over granting and revoking server access via those keys (kind of like a new proxy credit card in your example, I guess). There are lots of ways a service like Shellvault could accidentally encourage poor habits, and we're working very hard to encourage good ones instead. Thanks!
- shellshook 8y ago
  The only way this software even remotely makes sense is as a self-hosted open source product. Why is this closed source?
  - omarchowdhury 8y ago
    I have to agree with this.
  - devoply 8y ago
    > Why is this closed source? Because free shit don't make money, yo.
    - shellshook 8y ago
      Neither does an obviously flawed business model. I can't imagine ever wanting to use this as-is. Horribly insecure. If it was self hosted and open there'd at least be the tiny chance of a support contract.
    - 8y ago

by cntlzw 8y ago

vectorEQ 8y ago

i do want to be cynical: sed -i -e 's/#Port 22/Port 443/g' /etc/ssh/sshd_config on a more serious note, as you described but maybe from a more grumpy person: i don't think it's a great service, as it just compromises credentials by default while a normal configuration could solve it. if the server is also hosting some https website, then put it on an alternate ipv6 address (they are free if not cheap) and ssh into that. you only need to edit 2 files on your server for that to work :s why pay 5$ a month if you already have a capable server you are paying for?? the promise of not storing credentials etc. is nice, but if your servers are compromised it will be childsplay for efarious people to intercept them even if you didn't design that aspect to happen in the service design.

michaelmior 8y ago
> a normal configuration could solve it Could you explain what you mean by this? I get not everyone wants this, but just making SSH listen on port 443 doesn't give you access on a computer without an SSH client.
- awill 8y ago
  correct. You still need a client. The Op is probably referring to getting around firewall restrictions. Some companies block all outbound ports except p80 and p443, so if you work at such a company, you can't access your personal machine over p22. Shellvault lets you do that on p443. But so does changing your SSH server to listen on p443. A self hosted version of this might make a little more sense. However, it is still putting all your credentials in one place.
  - pmalynin 8y ago
    I mean there is also Teleport (Gravitational) that you could self host and get around most of those issues.
icebraining 8y ago
> if the server is also hosting some https website, then put it on an alternate ipv6 address (they are free if not cheap) and ssh into that. There's also sslh, which can multiplex the same port by detecting whether the incoming connection is TLS or SSH, and forwarding appropriately. It's pretty cool: https://www.rutschle.net/tech/sslh/README.html https://www.rutschle.net/tech/sslh/README.html That said, I think this service is for people who need to use computers without ssh clients installed locally.
- vectorEQ 8y ago
  its funny this came to my mind thinking about it but i wasn't aware it already existed. thanks for that.
progval 8y ago
> if the server is also hosting some https website, then put it on an alternate ipv6 address Or use sslh if you're stuck on IPv4

angerson 8y ago

Many other commenters have expressed similar misgivings, but I'll respond to this top-rated one so that I don't pollute the thread. First, thanks for your brutality. It's good to know that a service like this (which deals with such sensitive content) is treated suspiciously at first. Second, a few commenters have shown that it may be possible to reduce the MitM aspect by pushing more work into the browser with a method that could also provide end to end encryption. We're going to look into this thoroughly because we thought it was impossible at first, but I'm also curious if that would change your mind at all about using the service. At the very least, it would improve our users' security, so we're still going to see if we can do it. Third, I do want to emphasize that we encourage users to create multiple keys to use, so that they have lots of power over granting and revoking server access via those keys (kind of like a new proxy credit card in your example, I guess). There are lots of ways a service like Shellvault could accidentally encourage poor habits, and we're working very hard to encourage good ones instead. Thanks!

shellshook 8y ago
The only way this software even remotely makes sense is as a self-hosted open source product. Why is this closed source?
- omarchowdhury 8y ago
  I have to agree with this.
- devoply 8y ago
  > Why is this closed source? Because free shit don't make money, yo.
  - shellshook 8y ago
    Neither does an obviously flawed business model. I can't imagine ever wanting to use this as-is. Horribly insecure. If it was self hosted and open there'd at least be the tiny chance of a support contract.
  - 8y ago