3 ms·

First, the author writes as if shell servers with multiple people don't exist. Please see, for example, https://sdf.org/ https://sdf.org/ Second, if you're goi

First, the author writes as if shell servers with multiple people don't exist. Please see, for example, https://sdf.org/ https://sdf.org/ Second, if you're going to exclude every server on which anyone else has root, you're essentially excluding all hosting (except colocation), since essentially that means all computers you don't physically manage. There are many scenarios where a physically local computer is only trustworthy for the moment, and where this could change at any time. Windows computers, for instance, aren't trustworthy in the long term. Work computers may have nefarious software on them. Computers which are shared with multiple people (think of a family) may have users who aren't as careful. A shell on a trustworthy provider such as SDF may be safer as a place to store keys and from which to run ssh-agent, so this scenario shouldn't be discounted. Of course, this means nothing if your access to your shell on a trustworthy server is compromised, but wholesale discounting this is not helping people.

burnished 5y ago
The author makes it pretty plain they do everything from a laptop that is in their sole control. I don't think it is a reasonable critique that every article is pertinent to every kind of user.
- johnklos 5y ago
  It's not written in the voice of, "this is good for most, but there are good reasons for other scenarios" as much as it's written in the voice of, "don't do this, don't do this".
  - burnished 5y ago
    And they lay the reasons why out in a compelling and thoughtful manner. Your own comment is written with the voice you are decrying. Personally, I find opinionated articles like TFA to be very helpful. And trying to write something that works as a global solution or insight is.. difficult. It is a significantly different task trying to produce something helpful or interesting with a limited scope (my usecase, my opinion, etc) vs something that is broad enough to touch on everything else. Its just hard to feel like you know enough to speak from that position, you know?
pmoriarty 5y ago
"Work computers may have nefarious software on them. Computers which are shared with multiple people (think of a family) may have users who aren't as careful." Even a computer you manage yourself could have nefarious software on it, as most people don't usually manage their operating system and the operating system provider could serve up malicious software (intentionally or unintentionally), either originally or in an update. Same with the hardware of the machine, which could also compromise your keys or grant unauthorized people access. I would not feel safe merely because I physically managed my own machines and knew something about security. Really, a computer needs to be completely offline and with no ability to get online. Safest is not to use a computer at all.

burnished 5y ago

The author makes it pretty plain they do everything from a laptop that is in their sole control. I don't think it is a reasonable critique that every article is pertinent to every kind of user.

johnklos 5y ago
It's not written in the voice of, "this is good for most, but there are good reasons for other scenarios" as much as it's written in the voice of, "don't do this, don't do this".
- burnished 5y ago
  And they lay the reasons why out in a compelling and thoughtful manner. Your own comment is written with the voice you are decrying. Personally, I find opinionated articles like TFA to be very helpful. And trying to write something that works as a global solution or insight is.. difficult. It is a significantly different task trying to produce something helpful or interesting with a limited scope (my usecase, my opinion, etc) vs something that is broad enough to touch on everything else. Its just hard to feel like you know enough to speak from that position, you know?

pmoriarty 5y ago

"Work computers may have nefarious software on them. Computers which are shared with multiple people (think of a family) may have users who aren't as careful." Even a computer you manage yourself could have nefarious software on it, as most people don't usually manage their operating system and the operating system provider could serve up malicious software (intentionally or unintentionally), either originally or in an update. Same with the hardware of the machine, which could also compromise your keys or grant unauthorized people access. I would not feel safe merely because I physically managed my own machines and knew something about security. Really, a computer needs to be completely offline and with no ability to get online. Safest is not to use a computer at all.