| 1 |
On 7/15/22 11:46 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hmm... interesting. I will look into this. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
:-) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> But, it needs the agent to be running, which will make it tricky for |
| 7 |
> automation. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Why can't automation start an agent? Why can't there be an agent |
| 10 |
running that automation has access to? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> (I have some scripts that need to do things on different systems in |
| 13 |
> a sequence for which this could help) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
:-) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I know, which is why I was investigating automating it. The passwords |
| 18 |
> are too long to comfortably copy by hand. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I assume that you mean "type" when you say "copy". |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> I will definitely investigate this. They sound interesting. I'd set |
| 23 |
> the validity to a lot less if this can be automated easily. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Yes, it can be fairly easily automated. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
One of the other advantages of SSH /certificates/ is when you flip |
| 28 |
things around and use a /host/ certificate. Clients can recognize that |
| 29 |
the target host's certificate is signed by the trusted SSH CA and not |
| 30 |
prompt for the typical Trust On First Use (TOFU) scenario. Thus you can |
| 31 |
actually leverage the target host SSH fingerprint and not need to ignore |
| 32 |
that security aspect like so many people do. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> Added to my research-list. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
:-) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Grant. . . . |
| 42 |
unix || die |
Archives