Picture the amount of Captchas you already getting from a legitimate Chrome instance, but instead of by-passable annoying captchas, you are just locked out.
Picture the amount of Captchas you already getting from a legitimate Chrome instance, but instead of by-passable annoying captchas, you are just locked out.
After this party, this guy needed help, he lost his wallet and his phone, his sister also went to the party and gave him a ride there but had left. he didn't know her number to call her, and she'd locked down her socials so we couldn't use my phone to contact her. we were lucky that his socials weren't super locked down and managed to find someone that way, but priv keys are only good so long as you have them.
I have a backup key in storage. I have escrow mechanisms. These would be inconvenient, but, it's been 40 years since I've lost any keys or my wallet, so I feel pretty good about my odds.
Which is what the game here is. The odds. Famously humans do poorly when it comes to this.
My ssh keys are encrypted. They need a password, or they are worthless.
Sure, I can mistype that password as well, but doing so has no effect on the remote system, as the ssh client already fails locally.
Doesn’t change the advice, if this is your only management interface, don’t enable it :)
Also you know you can have MFA even with pw authentication right? :)
Unless you're only blocking connection attempts to ssh and not the VPN, but what good is that? There is no reason to expect the VPN to be any more secure than OpenSSH.
Hacking into the VPN doesn't get the attacker into the SSH server too, so there's defense in depth, if your concern is that sshd might have a vulnerability that can be exploited with repeated attempts. If your concern is that your keys might be stolen, this feature doesn't make sense to begin with.
Websites usually don't care about ssh brute force attempts because they don't listen on ssh. But the issue isn't websites anyway. The problem is that your server is blocking you, regardless of what websites are doing.
> If that doesn't matter to you and all you need is to get into a particular SSH server, and also the network blocks VPNs, you're still fine if the SSH is on port 9022 and VPN is port 22. If it's not your own SSH server and it's port 22, then you're still fine if your own VPN is port 22 (on a different host).
Then you have a VPN exposed to the internet in addition to SSH, and if you're not rate limiting connections to that then you should be just as concerned that the VPN "might have a vulnerability that can be exploited with repeated attempts." Whereas if the SSH server is only accessible via the VPN then having the SSH server rate limiting anything is only going to give you the opportunity to lock yourself out through fat fingering or a misconfigured script, since nobody else can access it.
Also notably, the most sensible way to run a VPN over TCP port 22 is generally to use the VPN which is built into OpenSSH. But now this change would have you getting locked out of the VPN too.
And that's still assuming you end up in a range that is actively attacking your sshd. It's definitely possible but really doesn't seem like a bad tradeoff