Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
65% Positive
Analyzed from 2783 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#key#ssh#keys#tpm#yubikey#private#access#agent#pkcs#something
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 2783 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (56 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
This may be bash-only, but a space before the command excludes something from history too.
Personally I like this which reduces noise in history from duplicate lines too. export HISTCONTROL=ignoreboth:erasedups
In theory the Linux kernel keyring would help here, even with a tsm or in conjunction with it.
Unfortunately as the industry abandoned the core Unix permission system (uid/gid) all of these methods just get a devfs[null] bind mount.
Only process that also support the traditional co-hosting model like nginx and Postgres do.
We would need nonce keys to gain no value from kernel memory or hardware storage.
Of course a real secure attention sequence would be preferable, such as e.g. requiring a Touch ID press on macOS for keys stored in the Secure Enclave. Not sure if TPM supports something similar when a fingerprint sensor is present?
The PIN can be an arbitrary string (password).
And keys cannot be stolen from backups.
Or stolen without your knowledge when you left your laptop unguarded for 5min.
Not every attacker has persistent undetected access. If the key can be copied then there's no opportunity for the original machine's tripwires to be triggered by its use. Every second malware runs is a risk of it being detected. Not so, or not in the same way, with a copied key.
This is really cool and goes beyond the usual steps of securing the key, but handling "what you see is what you sign" and key usage user confirmation at the OS level, which can be compromised much more easily (both input and output).
Since it just uses PKCS#11, it also works with tpm_pkcs11. Source for the various bits that are bundled is here [1].
Here's an overview of how it works:
1. Application asks to sign with GPG Key "1ABD0F4F95D89E15C2F5364D2B523B4FDC488AC7"
2. GPG looks at its key database and sees GPG Key "1ABD...8AC7" is a smartcard, reaches out to Smartcard Daemon (SCD), launching if needed -- this launches gnupg-pkcs11-scd per configuration
3. gnupg-pkcs11-scd loads the SSH Agent PKCS#11 module into its shared memory and initializes it and asks it to List Objects
4. The SSH Agent PKCS#11 module connects to the SSH Agent socket provided by Keeta Agent and asks it to List Keys
5. Key list is converted from SSH Agent protocol to PKCS#11 response by SSH Agent PKCS#11 module
6. Key list is converted from PKCS#11 response to gnupg-scd response by gnugpg-pkcs11-scd
7. GPG Reads the response and if the key is found, asks the SCD (gnugpg-pkcs11-scd) to Sign a hash of the Material
8. gnupg-pkgcs11-scd asks the PKCS#11 module to sign using the specified object by its Object ID
9. PKCS#11 module sends a message to Secretive over the SSH Agent socket to sign the material using a specific key (identified by its Key ID) using the requested signing algorithm and raw signing (i.e., no hashing)
10. Response makes it back through all those same layers unmodified except for wrapping
(illustrated at [2])
[0] https://github.com/KeetaNetwork/agent
[1] https://github.com/KeetaNetwork/agent/tree/main/Agent/gnupg/...
[2] https://rkeene.org/tmp/pkcs-sign.png
There's also the TPM speed issue. My computer takes ~500ms to sign with an ECC256 key with the TPM, which starts to become an issue when running scripts that use git operations in serial. This is a recurring problem that people tend to blame on export controls: https://stiankri.substack.com/p/tpm-performance
And the best thing is that you can create several different ssh keys this way, each with a different password, if that's something you prefer. Then you need to type the password _and_ touch the yubikey.
These work flawlessly with the KeepassXC ssh-agent integration. My private keys are password protected, saved securely inside my password vault, and with my ssh config setup, I just type in the hostname and tap my Yubikey.
https://www.stavros.io/posts/u2f-fido2-with-ssh/
We've got private Git repos only accessible through ssh (and the users' shell is set to git-shell) and it's SSH only through Yubikey. The challenge to auth happens inside the Yubikey and the secret never leaves the Yubikey.
This doesn't solve all the worlds' problem (like hunger and war) but at least people are definitely NOT committing to the repo without physically having access to the Yubikey and pushing on it (now ofc a dev's computer may be compromised and he may confirm auth on his Yubikey and push things he didn't meant to but that's a far cry from "we stole your private SSH key after you entered your passphrase a friday evening and are now pushing stuff in your name to 100 repos of yours during the week-end").
Keep a CA (constrained to your one identity) with a longish (90 day?) TTL on the TPM. Use it to sign a short lived (16h?) keys from your TPM, use that as your working key.
https://github.com/ran-sama/stm32-gnuk-usb-smartcard
Well no thanks, that risk is much higher than what this is worth.
I saw a write up where someone successfully got sshd to use a host key from a fido2 yubikey without touch, but I can't find it...
As far as "TPM vs HSM", it is soooo much simpler to make a key pair with a fido2 hardware key:
You can get them for <$30.I can't find it now, but I believe someone from Tailscale commented on HN (or was it github?) on what they ran into and why the default was reverted so that things were not stored in the TPM.
EDIT: just saw the mention in the article about the BIOS updates.
I'm wondering why that doesn't apply here. The TPM holds the key to the cipher that is protecting your private keys. Someone uses some kind of RCE or LPE to get privileged access to your system. Now it sits and waits for you to do something that requires access to your SSH keys. When you do that you are expecting whatever user prompts come up, the malware rides along this expectation and gets ahold of your private SSH keys and stores them or sends them off somewhere. I'm not even positive that they need high degree of privileges on your box, if they can manipulate your invocation of the ssh client, by modifying your PATH or adding an ssh wrapper to something already in your path, then this pattern will also work.
What am I gaining from using this method that I don't get from using a password on my ssh private key?
Further promises are RTC that can prevent bruteforce (forced wait after wrong password entry) or locking itself after too many wrong attempts.
A good MCU receives the challenge and only replies with the signature, if the password was correct. You can argue that a phone with a Titan security chip is a type of TPM too. In the end it doesn't matter. I chose the solution that works best for me, where I can either only have all keys in my smart card or an offline paper wallet too in a fireproof safe. The choice is the user's.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/SSH_keys#Storing_SSH_keys_o...
And even the password can be forced to be re-entered by the agent for every use, if that level of security is wanted.
Technically, a private key that was imported (and is marked as exportable) to a PKCS#11 device can subsequently be re-exported (but even then, during normal operation the device itself handles the crypto), but a key generated on-device and marked as non-exportable guarantees the private key never leaves the physical device.
It does mean that they can't use the key a thousand times. But once? Yeah sure.
The recommended usage of a yubikey for ssh does something similar as otherwise your key consumes one of the limited number of slots on the key.
What am I missing?
Yes, with TPM and yubikey you have the option to store the per key material on disk, encrypted by the TPM. But the way this is then used is that the PKCS software sends that encrypted blob AND the requested operation, and gets only the output back. The CPU doesn't get the SSH private key back. Just the output of the RSA operation using the key.
Depending on which authenticator app (or maybe applies to all?), that data either is, or can be, backed up.
A yubikey cannot be cloned.[1]
> the malware rides along this expectation and gets ahold of your private SSH keys and stores them or sends them off somewhere.
Ah, this is where your misunderstanding lies. No, the crypto operation runs ON the TPM or yubikey. The actual secret key NEVER lives in RAM. (ehem, after it was imported, if importing is the method by which it was generated)
[1] You know what I mean. Of course in principle it can be. But not like a phone where it can literally be sent via scp.
"Your SSH keys" aren't really part of that threat model. "You" know the device you're connecting from (or to, though generally it's the client that's the mobile/untrusted thing). It's... yours. Or under your control.
All the stuff in the article about how the TPM contents can't be extracted is true, but missing the point. Yes, you need your own (outer) credentials to extract access to the (inner) credentials, which is no more or less true than just using your own credentials in the first place via something boring like a passphrase. It's an extra layer of indirection without value if all the hardware is yours.
TPMs and secure enclaves only matter when there's a third party watching[1] who needs to know the transaction is legitimate.
[1] An employer, a bank, a cloud service provider, a mobile platform vendor, etc... This stuff has value! But not to you.
So does a pass phrase though, with significant less complexity and fragility.
Again, the linked article and responses here are making IMHO a pretty bad mistake with threat model analysis.
Which is what SSH keys are for?
The advantage of this approach is that malware can't just send off your private key file to its servers.
The use case is ssh keys! If malware can run an ssh command on the remote host, it doesn't need to steal your key, it can just install itself there. Or add its own keys to the access, etc... At best, you'd have to detect and fix that sort of thing with auditing and control, something that's isomorphic to the "third party" requirements I was mentioning.
To repeat the third time: this is all terrible threat model analysis. TPMs do not have value for individuals managing access between trusted devices. TPMs are for third-party validation.