Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Generating and storing #SSH keys inside the #TPM (Trusted Platform Module)

Generating and storing #SSH keys inside the #TPM (Trusted Platform Module)

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
sshtpm
18 Posts 8 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • jpmens@mastodon.socialJ jpmens@mastodon.social

    @pemensik from [1] I learned to `usermod -G tss $USER'

    [1] https://jade.fyi/blog/tpm-ssh/

    pemensik@fosstodon.orgP This user is from outside of this forum
    pemensik@fosstodon.orgP This user is from outside of this forum
    pemensik@fosstodon.org
    wrote last edited by
    #9

    @jpmens Interesting. Is there a limit of keys number, which I can store into my TPM 2.0 chip? I think I would like a local root service a bit more, talking by unix domain socket to local users. But nobody wrote anything similar and I won't have time to do that soon myself. Found about half year ago, practical using of TPM on Linux is very sparsely documented for mere mortals.

    jpmens@mastodon.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • pemensik@fosstodon.orgP pemensik@fosstodon.org

      @jpmens Interesting. Is there a limit of keys number, which I can store into my TPM 2.0 chip? I think I would like a local root service a bit more, talking by unix domain socket to local users. But nobody wrote anything similar and I won't have time to do that soon myself. Found about half year ago, practical using of TPM on Linux is very sparsely documented for mere mortals.

      jpmens@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
      jpmens@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
      jpmens@mastodon.social
      wrote last edited by
      #10

      @pemensik https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36922323

      pemensik@fosstodon.orgP 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • jpmens@mastodon.socialJ jpmens@mastodon.social

        Generating and storing #SSH keys inside the #TPM (Trusted Platform Module)

        Link Preview Image
        Store ssh keys inside the TPM: ssh-tpm-agent

        After writing age-plugin-tpm a friend of mine at the hackerspace was super excited to finally have easy file encryption with TPM sealed keys, all without having to rely on gnupg. “This is great!” he said. “I wish I could have my SSH keys sealed in a TPM just as easily”. We should have left it at that. I shouldn’t have replied with a random assortment of facts like “I know google/go-tpm now”, or “but Go has a ssh-agent protocol implementation” followed-up with “Filippo has already implemented yubikey-agent, it can’t be that hard”. So I wound up writing a new ssh agent.

        favicon

        Morten Linderud (linderud.dev)

        It works, at least on a Thinkpad X1 and Debian 12. I'm not sure I'd actually prefer that to something more portable such as a Yubikey.

        I'm interested in hearing your feedback, and whether you actually use the TPM (and what for).

        imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI This user is from outside of this forum
        imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI This user is from outside of this forum
        imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.es
        wrote last edited by
        #11

        @jpmens
        I'm using it both in my home lab as a PoC and (so far, only experimentally) in my day job. We've gotten to the point now where exfiltration of keys is table stakes if an attacker gets into your environment, so I'm a big fan of hardware-bound keys. A yubikey is technically better, imo, but the UX when you've got less-security-focused-users is just better if the key is built into the machine they're provided with.

        jpmens@mastodon.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.es

          @jpmens
          I'm using it both in my home lab as a PoC and (so far, only experimentally) in my day job. We've gotten to the point now where exfiltration of keys is table stakes if an attacker gets into your environment, so I'm a big fan of hardware-bound keys. A yubikey is technically better, imo, but the UX when you've got less-security-focused-users is just better if the key is built into the machine they're provided with.

          jpmens@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
          jpmens@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
          jpmens@mastodon.social
          wrote last edited by
          #12

          @iMeddles interesting. Does that mean you pre-generate keys for laptop/desktop users, and if I may ask, passphrase-less?

          imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • jpmens@mastodon.socialJ jpmens@mastodon.social

            @pemensik https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36922323

            pemensik@fosstodon.orgP This user is from outside of this forum
            pemensik@fosstodon.orgP This user is from outside of this forum
            pemensik@fosstodon.org
            wrote last edited by
            #13

            @jpmens I wish systemd-credentials was somehow merged with this usage style. So I can have as many keys for as many users on local system, but encrypted by some key stored in the TPM.

            That information is great, but on very obscure domain. I think it should deserve some text file in actual packages providing such functionality.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • jpmens@mastodon.socialJ jpmens@mastodon.social

              @iMeddles interesting. Does that mean you pre-generate keys for laptop/desktop users, and if I may ask, passphrase-less?

              imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI This user is from outside of this forum
              imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI This user is from outside of this forum
              imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.es
              wrote last edited by
              #14

              @jpmens
              At present, yes, while it's experimental, but the eventual design I want to get to once the tooling is a *little* more mature would get rid of pre-generation and render passphrases moot.

              (Warning: wall of text incoming in next reply with design details :p)

              imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.es

                @jpmens
                At present, yes, while it's experimental, but the eventual design I want to get to once the tooling is a *little* more mature would get rid of pre-generation and render passphrases moot.

                (Warning: wall of text incoming in next reply with design details :p)

                imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI This user is from outside of this forum
                imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI This user is from outside of this forum
                imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.es
                wrote last edited by
                #15

                @jpmens
                The design I *want* to get to in order to roll this out as non-experimental combines the tpm-bound ssh keys with short-lived (<24hr) SSH certificates, alongside device attestation (to prove a given ssh key is on a tpm, no matter who or when it was generated).

                The background flow I'm working on, for which we *almost* have all the tooling, is: every day a script notices the user doesn't have a valid ssh certificate, and so generates a new CSR for the key, alongside an attestation statement. The SSH CA validates the attestation statement is correct for the laptop that that user was issued (and API calls out to the Device Management System to check that the device is compliant with all our policies) before issuing the certificate. Access to the CA is gated behind an SSO login, which enforces a daily check that the user is still valid and hasn't been suspended.

                Thus the UX for the end user is minimally changed (one SSO login gets enforced per day, but otherwise they ssh and git in the manner they're used to, without them needing to change any behaviour - in fact as they never have to worry about copying their SSH publeys around, it's likely easier for the end user overall); whilst for us in Sysadmin we get loads of upsides:

                1. No longer having to care about managing and clearing out authorized_keys files as they don't exist thanks to the certs
                2. Guarantees that a given ssh login was initiated from a device that has our security policies applied to it
                3. the knowledge that if we have to suspend a user for any reason, all their SSH access will be gone either as soon as the device management system locks their computer out (if their computer is online) or as soon as the ssh certificate expires if not
                4. We can leverage the TPMs ability to measure boot to stop a user even starting the process of getting access if the operating system or the system boot settings have been tampered with.

                It's definitely a system with a bunch of complexity, but when you're in an Organisation context it has a lot of nice upsides as a trade off for that.

                jpmens@mastodon.socialJ 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.es

                  @jpmens
                  The design I *want* to get to in order to roll this out as non-experimental combines the tpm-bound ssh keys with short-lived (<24hr) SSH certificates, alongside device attestation (to prove a given ssh key is on a tpm, no matter who or when it was generated).

                  The background flow I'm working on, for which we *almost* have all the tooling, is: every day a script notices the user doesn't have a valid ssh certificate, and so generates a new CSR for the key, alongside an attestation statement. The SSH CA validates the attestation statement is correct for the laptop that that user was issued (and API calls out to the Device Management System to check that the device is compliant with all our policies) before issuing the certificate. Access to the CA is gated behind an SSO login, which enforces a daily check that the user is still valid and hasn't been suspended.

                  Thus the UX for the end user is minimally changed (one SSO login gets enforced per day, but otherwise they ssh and git in the manner they're used to, without them needing to change any behaviour - in fact as they never have to worry about copying their SSH publeys around, it's likely easier for the end user overall); whilst for us in Sysadmin we get loads of upsides:

                  1. No longer having to care about managing and clearing out authorized_keys files as they don't exist thanks to the certs
                  2. Guarantees that a given ssh login was initiated from a device that has our security policies applied to it
                  3. the knowledge that if we have to suspend a user for any reason, all their SSH access will be gone either as soon as the device management system locks their computer out (if their computer is online) or as soon as the ssh certificate expires if not
                  4. We can leverage the TPMs ability to measure boot to stop a user even starting the process of getting access if the operating system or the system boot settings have been tampered with.

                  It's definitely a system with a bunch of complexity, but when you're in an Organisation context it has a lot of nice upsides as a trade off for that.

                  jpmens@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jpmens@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  jpmens@mastodon.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #16

                  @iMeddles it’s late here, and I’m tired, but I will try and process/understand tomorrow. Thank you for your insights!

                  imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • jpmens@mastodon.socialJ jpmens@mastodon.social

                    @iMeddles it’s late here, and I’m tired, but I will try and process/understand tomorrow. Thank you for your insights!

                    imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI This user is from outside of this forum
                    imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.esI This user is from outside of this forum
                    imeddles@mastodon.eddmil.es
                    wrote last edited by
                    #17

                    @jpmens
                    No problem, I'm very happy to answer any questions about this - I'm still trying to make sure I've got all the pieces straight in my head, and answering questions is the best way to find the gaps in my own knowledge!

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • jpmens@mastodon.socialJ jpmens@mastodon.social

                      `ssh host whoami` takes just over 1 second longer when using a TPM-backed SSH key than when using the same key algorithm in a file on the file system.

                      drscriptt@oldbytes.spaceD This user is from outside of this forum
                      drscriptt@oldbytes.spaceD This user is from outside of this forum
                      drscriptt@oldbytes.space
                      wrote last edited by
                      #18

                      @jpmens I’m not surprised by that.

                      I suspect that the security trade off warrants it, especially for headless servers to have the private part of the key in hardware that it can’t be extracted from.

                      Maybe not ideal for interactive use.

                      But could be better if TPM key didn’t have a passphrase requirement and a local file did require a passphrase.

                      Assuming corporate security scans all keys and flags any without a passphrase on them.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups