Re: SSH Fingerprint Validation and Authentication
From: Per Hedeland (per@hedeland.org)
Date: 04/17/03
- Next message: William Peckham: "Re: To limit the user"
- Previous message: Matt: "Dynamic Port Forwarding on Windows"
- In reply to: saifa: "SSH Fingerprint Validation and Authentication"
- Next in thread: saifa: "Re: SSH Fingerprint Validation and Authentication"
- Reply: saifa: "Re: SSH Fingerprint Validation and Authentication"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: per@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:52:57 +0000 (UTC)
In article <20030416015657.19627.qmail@gacracker.org> saifa
<saifa@redneck.gacracker.org> writes:
>
>Let's say that a user connects to my machine for the first time using
>SSH, and is presented with:
>
> [user@host user]# ssh host.domain.org
> The authenticity of host 'host.domain.org (hhh.xxx.yyy.zzz)' can't be
>established.
> RSA key fingerprint is 5b:37:cf:68:84:57:6f:1c:27:0e:2a:ef:fd:52:10:49.
> Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)?
>
>I understand that the error received if a key has *changed* will alert
>the user to a possible compromise, but how does this initial warning
>help? If the user contacts me and asks "what is your SSH RSA
>fingerprint?," how does this help the user determine that the machine
>hasn't been compromised?
Surely you don't think that SSH can help you figure out if a host has
been compromised? And of course that is not the purpose of the server
authentication, it is to defend against a man-in-the-middle attack.
I.e. if the user contacts you and asks for the fingerprint, and what you
say agrees with what his client has printed, he can conclude that there
is no man-in-the-middle, and not only continue with the session but also
approve that his client saves the public key for future connections (so
as to not have to call you on the phone every time:-).
Likewise, the more severe warning/error you get when there is a mismatch
with the previously saved key is due to this indicating that there may
*be* a man-in-the-middle. In practice, the most common *actual* cause is
that an ignorant admin has changed the remote host key (and this is most
unfortunate) - but that is not what it is *intended* to detect (and I
don't know why anyone compromising the host would go and change the host
key...).
--Per Hedeland
per@hedeland.org
- Next message: William Peckham: "Re: To limit the user"
- Previous message: Matt: "Dynamic Port Forwarding on Windows"
- In reply to: saifa: "SSH Fingerprint Validation and Authentication"
- Next in thread: saifa: "Re: SSH Fingerprint Validation and Authentication"
- Reply: saifa: "Re: SSH Fingerprint Validation and Authentication"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|