Known hosts should be optional about ssh-key-action

[shimataro]

v2.3.0 has been released, now known_hosts: unnecessary is available!
closing.

[onedr0p]

@till I do the same thing and choose to use webfactory/ssh-agent which works fine.

    - name: Install SSH key
      uses: webfactory/[email protected]
      with:
        ssh-private-key: ${{ secrets.DIGITALOCEAN_SSH_KEY }}

[shimataro]

@till
Thank you for your proposal, insecure option may be a good idea.
Let me think about it.

[till]

Author can do as he pleases. This is their open source. Best is to fork if you really don't like it. Or use the alternative ☝🏼

[muesli]

Of course, I'd just like to point out that the reasoning is rather flawed.

[mxcl]

@muesli is king

[shimataro]

@kurtwheeler
It might be valid case, but known_hosts will be necessary in many case for security reason.

If you have no way to know server key/address and are sure there are no security risk (such as MITM attack), please set dummy server key as workaround.

- name: Install SSH key
  uses: shimataro/ssh-key-action@v2
  with:
    key: ${{ secrets.SSH_KEY }}
    known_hosts: github.com ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAABIwAAAQEAq2A7hRGmdnm9tUDbO9IDSwBK6TbQa+PXYPCPy6rbTrTtw7PHkccKrpp0yVhp5HdEIcKr6pLlVDBfOLX9QUsyCOV0wzfjIJNlGEYsdlLJizHhbn2mUjvSAHQqZETYP81eFzLQNnPHt4EVVUh7VfDESU84KezmD5QlWpXLmvU31/yMf+Se8xhHTvKSCZIFImWwoG6mbUoWf9nzpIoaSjB+weqqUUmpaaasXVal72J+UX2B+2RPW3RcT0eOzQgqlJL3RKrTJvdsjE3JEAvGq3lGHSZXy28G3skua2SmVi/w4yCE6gbODqnTWlg7+wC604ydGXA8VJiS5ap43JXiUFFAaQ==

[muesli]

@shimataro What if I only need the SSH key locally during the test? I'm not even trying to connect to anything, but use it to test software that depends on a valid SSH key being installed / available.

[shimataro]

Hi, @muesli. Sorry for the late reply.

You can use dummy server key, such as github.com.
If you want to check whether SSH key is valid or not, try SSH to github.com.

Please refer #143 (comment).

[muesli]

@shimataro Yeah, I use that as a hacky workaround. Why not solve this properly tho?

[shimataro]

@muesli
It's for security reason.
(and I didn't expect your case, no need to connect to anywhere)

Direct connection without known_hosts is dangerous. Therefore this action enforces to specify it.

If you don't have the way to know server key or IP address in advance, please use multistage SSH via "bastion server".

[GitHub]  <-- Internet --> [bastion] <-- LAN --> [target]

If LAN is secure enough, it only needs to specify the key of bastion server to known_hosts.

[muesli]

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but what's the danger of not having a known_hosts file?

[shimataro]

@muesli
SSH without known_hosts allows MITM attack.

Of course, there are no risks if you don't connect to anywhere.

[muesli]

@shimataro I'm still a bit puzzled by that. Which MITM attack are you referring to? Not having a known_hosts file is only really a problem if you disable StrictHostKeyChecking, which would be a bad idea in the first place.

[shimataro]

@muesli
Missing known_hosts means that SSH cannot verify server.
That is, it allows MITM attack.

SSH with CA can verify server without known_hosts, but it isn't a popular method.

[muesli]

I think you're mistaken here. A missing known_hosts file would intercept any connection, asking you if you trust the remote host before proceeding, unless you have disabled StrictHostKeyChecking.

As such it would be absolutely fine to make this feature optional. There's no MITM-scenario and no security issue I can see.

[shimataro]

A missing known_hosts file would intercept any connection, asking you if you trust the remote host before proceeding,

Yes, you are right.
But if asked during CI process, the process will stop and fail at the point.

In addition, when you decide whether or not to trust a server, what would you base on?
The only way is to check the fingerprint of host key, and it's identical to use known_hosts. known_hosts is to check host key.

[muesli]

But if asked during CI process, the process will stop and fail at the point.

Correct, just like it is the case when you try to connect to any host that you have forgot to add to known_hosts.

In addition, when you decide whether or not to trust a server, what would you base on?

known_hosts is the right place. But remember my original point: there are situations where you don't connect to any host with your SSH key and instead have a different usecase for it. In such cases known_hosts should be optional. There's no security issue as we've elaborated.

[shimataro]

Sorry for late response.

But remember my original point: there are situations where you don't connect to any host with your SSH key and instead have a different usecase for it.

Yes I remember, but it is not an expected usage.
This action is for SSH connection; therefore I made known_hosts required parameter.

[till]

I wanted to use this action to do the following:

• setup my keys
• create a server (in the cloud)
• run my ansible
• verify it all worked

The known_host parameter is a bit odd in this case. With an elastic environment, known_hosts seems to be a bit less useful anyway? I understand that for deployments and what not, I can use a static bastion host, but even then, I would probably use SSHFP records?

Long story short, I wouldn't mind if you made known_hosts optional and printed a fat warning that people are aware of it? Maybe another option like, insecure: yes, which would be no by default? So people can use this without workarounds like supplying a bogus known_hosts?

[muesli]

While I'd still prefer an insecure option over a fake known_hosts file, I still don't see a reason to actually introduce that option. There's nothing insecure about not supplying any known hosts whatsoever.

[shimataro]

@muesli

There's nothing insecure about not supplying any known hosts whatsoever.

Could you tell me which one do you mean?

1. Not providing known_hosts is secure enough in any case
2. Not providingknown_hosts without thinking is insecure, but there are some methods to make SSH secure without known_hosts
3. Not providing known_hosts might be insecure, but We don't have to take care because attack is rare
4. or other meaning

I agree with you if 2 (but these methods are not so popular).

[muesli]

Definitely 1.

The worst thing that can happen if you don't specify any known hosts is ssh refusing to connect to a remote machine before you verify it and add it to the known hosts. There's no security issue here and no MITM attack if you don't have a known_hosts file.

As such I don't understand why an option called insecure would be helpful. If anything it's rather misleading.

[shimataro]

The worst thing that can happen if you don't specify any known hosts is ssh refusing to connect to a remote machine before you verify it and add it to the known hosts. There's no security issue here and no MITM attack if you don't have a known_hosts file.

Yes, you are right, but I think CI will stop and fail at that point.

Or, I am misunderstanding something?

[muesli]

Yes, you are right, but I think CI will stop and fail at that point.

Just like it would if you try to connect to any host that you forgot to add to known_hosts. This should be documented in the README accordingly. There is no security issue however, and no reason to enforce having a known_hosts, when there are good reasons to use this without ever connecting to a remote host.

I hope you understand my reasoning, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could reconsider your decision ❤️

[shimataro]

@muesli
I think I get what you mean. Is this OK?

• You DON'T mean that SSH connection without known_hosts (using StrictHostKeyChecking=no) is secure.
• You want to install key but don't need SSH connection (so there are no security issues); #143 (comment)

Unfortunately, this action is designed for SSH connection. So known_hosts is expected to exist, and not providing known_hosts is insecure in many case.

But I'm considering a proposal #143 (comment).
Please wait for a decision!

[muesli]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

• SSH without a known_hosts is perfectly fine.
• SSH with StrictHostKeyChecking=no is a problem and insecure.
• Yes, I want to use this action without the need for a remote connection.

I get it you don't want to support that, I just don't understand your reasoning. At this point I think I'll just go ahead and fork this action since this seems to be the more constructive approach.

[shimataro]

Hello everyone,
Since there are some secure methods that don't need known_hosts, such as SSHFP and signed server key, I decided to provide a special value that enables known_hosts to be omitted.
It is known_hosts: unnecessary. known_hosts parameter itself remains required and needs to be set to unnecessary explicitly.

DO NOT use it with StrictHostKeyChecking=no option, otherwise you might get MITM attack. Make sure that you are using secure methods.
HANDLE WITH CARE!!

It will be released in a few days or weeks.
Thank you for many discussion😆