4 ms·

I heard that ssh is kinda of an unnecessary step, since wireguard is already encrypted by default. Even legacy rsh should work fine in that setup. But I'm still

I heard that ssh is kinda of an unnecessary step, since wireguard is already encrypted by default. Even legacy rsh should work fine in that setup. But I'm still not convinced, having double encryption is not a real performance problem in the real world. And I prefer it, just to be safe

yencabulator 2y ago
SSH can authenticate a user, wireguard (as typically deployed) only authenticates a computer. SSH can sometimes authenticate intent, like Yubikey touch. Using wireguard for authentication is a mistake. The category of mistake is usually referred to as ambient authority, often exploited via a confused deputy.
- jmole 2y ago
  I think you are misunderstanding the use of wireguard here - this is a userspace wireguard connection, so the process has the same permissions as the user executing it. In one sense, this is no different than adding a public key to ~/ssh/authorized_keys. If you control the key, you control the authentication.
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    In the case of the project linked, yes. I'm responding to the comment that said > I heard that ssh is kinda of an unnecessary step
- augusto-moura 2y ago
  rsh would fill the same gap for authentication, (or even raw telnet), or anything that integrates with unix users. What makes SSH different is the encrypting part. The keys were only introduced to be used by the encryption algorithms. Users and multiple identities were a core detail of nixes much before SSH
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    rsh relies on the client host to not lie, that's quite a different level of guarantee than touching a Yubikey.
    - augusto-moura 2y ago
      Ok, I get what you mean rlogin and rsh are not safe because of inumerous legacy problems. But I think you get what I meant as well, authorization problems can be solved without SSH. I said that even rsh would do because will can ignore all the weird outdated stuff and just login with an user and password, same as a local login. In that case telnet would also work. However, I truly believe that cryptographic keys are way superior to passwords. And going back to them would be a huge step back

yencabulator 2y ago

SSH can authenticate a user, wireguard (as typically deployed) only authenticates a computer. SSH can sometimes authenticate intent, like Yubikey touch. Using wireguard for authentication is a mistake. The category of mistake is usually referred to as ambient authority, often exploited via a confused deputy.

jmole 2y ago
I think you are misunderstanding the use of wireguard here - this is a userspace wireguard connection, so the process has the same permissions as the user executing it. In one sense, this is no different than adding a public key to ~/ssh/authorized_keys. If you control the key, you control the authentication.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  In the case of the project linked, yes. I'm responding to the comment that said > I heard that ssh is kinda of an unnecessary step
augusto-moura 2y ago
rsh would fill the same gap for authentication, (or even raw telnet), or anything that integrates with unix users. What makes SSH different is the encrypting part. The keys were only introduced to be used by the encryption algorithms. Users and multiple identities were a core detail of nixes much before SSH
- yencabulator 2y ago
  rsh relies on the client host to not lie, that's quite a different level of guarantee than touching a Yubikey.
  - augusto-moura 2y ago
    Ok, I get what you mean rlogin and rsh are not safe because of inumerous legacy problems. But I think you get what I meant as well, authorization problems can be solved without SSH. I said that even rsh would do because will can ignore all the weird outdated stuff and just login with an user and password, same as a local login. In that case telnet would also work. However, I truly believe that cryptographic keys are way superior to passwords. And going back to them would be a huge step back