> because I know better than the netsec team
For anyone who's been around the block a few times, there's a good chance this is true.
Most organizations' netsec teams are too busy throwing money at vendors to keep up.
For anyone who's been around the block a few times, there's a good chance this is true.
Most organizations' netsec teams are too busy throwing money at vendors to keep up.
You’re not the one who’s phone is going to ring at 3am on Saturday when that Tor node gets compromised. You’re not the one who has to manage the security incident. You’re not the one who has to explain why your security controls and policy did not prevent this from happening. Nor are you the one who has to clean up the damage if something goes badly.
I also think you’re vastly overestimating the average developers awareness of security issues. Perhaps you are very well versed in this topic, but many developers are utterly clueless, even when it comes to basic application security practices.
The problem isn’t SSH over TOR being insecure. It is sidestepping all of the security controls in place at your org and not talking to the netsec folks first.
Honestly I would be amazed if any competent netsec folks would even allow TOR outbound by default. I certainly wouldn’t allow it by default in an enterprise environment.
I don't even disagree with the logic, but the BigCorp Infosec Team heavy-handed approach to working with developers invites the developers to produce creative circumventions.