Re: ssh
- From: Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:43:23 -0800
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:35:42PM +0100, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 09:55 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Ahh. That's what I was afraid of. Having ssh keys without a passphrase
is convenient, but very insecure. You are better off without the keys.
For the longest time I did not understand that, then some kind soul on
this list pointed to ssh-agent and keychain. Very minor inconvenience
(enter the passphrase once when you login), and *much* more secure.
Another great package is libpam-ssh, unlocking your ssh keys at login
time, meaning you will only need to type a password once.
because I'm too lazy to research it, why is this any better than a
passwordless key? If someone is using your login then your ssh keys
are unlocked.
A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: fvwm
- Next by Date: Desktop (was: Re: Firefox/Iceweasel's weird close/quit behaviour)
- Previous by thread: Re: ssh
- Next by thread: Re: ssh
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|