3 ms·

I see zero problem with using SSH, which happens to be a pretty secure protocol. In fact I would prefer it to HTTPS since it is not by default vulnerable to mal

by ambrop7 12y ago

I see zero problem with using SSH, which happens to be a pretty secure protocol. In fact I would prefer it to HTTPS since it is not by default vulnerable to malicious CAs. Note for example that GitHub allows Git access over SSH. When the author says that the system "exposes the private key", well, it's by design that the user can see it - since they need to use it to identify themselves to the SSH server. It's not much different from being assigned a password by the server. What could be improved is if it was transferred over HTTPS rather than HTTP, and of course also the install script. (I only speak about the usage of SSH, it's possible that they still do something insecure..)

lcampbell 12y ago
> it is not by default vulnerable to malicious CAs Well, in this particular case, they're using ssh [..] -o 'StrictHostKeyChecking no' -o 'UserKnownHostsFile /dev/null' [..] So the remote authentication bits are already out the window. It would be nicer if they included the host's public key in the installation package rather than eschewing it completely.
- ambrop7 12y ago
  Indeed, they're just using it wrong.
lucaspiller 12y ago
> When the author says that the system "exposes the private key" To be fair the author didn't, the submitter did. I'm not sure if they are the same person.