[jrozner]

I think it's interesting they're choosing to use certificates this way. If they're already using certs, why not just leverage sshca auth? Also, at the end of the day, it's still effectively a bearer token. I founded a company called Based Security last year in this space. We're looking for design partners currently. We host a CA for you (or you can host yourself if you want) and use ssh certificates and bind the user identity (oidc to the IdP) to a physical device (yubikey, secure enclave, tpm, etc.) This ensures that the user is both in possession of the physical device and that the credential can't be stolen without stealing the device, unlike the bearer token examples here. Currently we're offering support for GitHub and GitLab authentication but it works out of the box with standard ssh tooling as well. It just currently requires manually handling user provisioning for standard ssh access.

[EthanHeilman]

> Why not just leverage sshca auth?

Because that has two trusted parties: the IDP and the SSH CA. OPKSSH has just one trusted party: the IDP.

> This ensures that the user is both in possession of the physical device and that the credential can't be stolen without stealing the device, unlike the bearer token examples here. Currently we're offering support for GitHub and GitLab authentication but it works out of the box with standard ssh tooling as well. It just currently requires manually handling user provisioning for standard ssh access.

That sounds valuable.

Have you looked in OpenPubkey, the cosigner protocol supports binding hardware tokens to ID Tokens? Although not as fancy as having the SSH key pair live in the hardware token but maybe we could figure out a way to get the best of both worlds.

[jrozner]

I can understand the concern about having a second trusted party but think that the value of utilizing the standard ssh ca auth flow is worth the potential risk. If you require keys in attested hardware and verify that before issuing certs, the actual attack becomes very difficult. You need to compromise the actual hardware or compromise the CA in a pretty substantial way to issue certs to untrusted private keys. The certificate alone doesn't actually do anything without the key. In addition to just being supported out of the box, we can also issue hardware bound host keys, which allow us to offer bi-directional verification. We gain the benefit of all the standard PKI tooling (eg. revocation lists, ACME, etc.) and can use the same PKI for other scenarios (eg. mTLS, piv, etc.) by issuing x509 certificates instead. That's our long term plan is moving past ssh auth and having it be an attestable, immovable, hardware backed identity that can be usable for continuous authentication in other areas.

I have looked into OpenPubKey briefly in the past but haven't spent a ton of time with it. We were going in a very different direction and it didn't seem particularly useful based on our goals or what we wanted to achieve.

edit: Looking at the documentation https://docs.bastionzero.com/openpubkey-ssh/openpubkey-ssh/i... It seems like to use OpenPubKey you also need a fairly modern version of OpenSSH. It also requires that the user authenticating have sudo access on the machine, which doesn't sound great. It's not clear to me whether it's possible for the existing authorized_keys file to co-exist or whether that's just to stop access using existing keys but using the standard ssh certs will co-exist allowing for a non-binary rollout if there are use cases that need to be worked around.