Inability to export the private key is no different from using an YubiKey? You can't "backup" the private key they generate either.
You need to have:
- an offline master private key backup (air-gapped)
- primary YubiKey (daily use)
- backup YubiKey (locked away)
- revocation certificate (separate storage) (it is your kill-switch)
Having a second YubiKey enrolled is the standard practice.
What people do wrong is:
- They generate directly on YubiKey
- They only use one device
- They do not create a revocation certificate
- They have no offline backups
You generate your GPG keys on a secured system, load the subkeys (not the master because it is not used for daily cryptography) into the YubiKeys, and then remove the secret keys from this system where you generated the keys.
If you use your GPG key for SSH, the servers that have your public key do not automatically know that your GPG key was revoked, and SSH authentication will proceed unless you remove the public key from the server OR the server uses an SSH CA/KRL model.
All in all, SSH supports real revocation, but it must be enforced by the server. It is different from GPG where revocation follows the key, not the server.
I have not used KRL myself, but I sort of know how it works. You can generate a new empty KRL, then add keys to revoke, and then to distribute the KRL to servers by configuring OpenSSH to use the KRL file, by adding "RevokedKeys /etc/ssh/revoked_keys.krl" to "/etc/ssh/sshd_config".
The pros of KRL is that they scale better than manual removal for multiple servers, and you can revoke entire CA ranges instead of individual keys if using SSH certificates which is recommended for large setups.
I hope I could clear some things up. Let me know if you have any questions though!
No. You should ALWAYS generate on the Yubikey. That's the whole point.
Your backup is one (or more) other keys.
It is only slightly less secure if you pre-generate subkeys on an offline machine if you want identical subkeys on multiple devices (and if you want exact backups). Sometimes this is exactly what people want.
Ultimately it really depends on your use case.
BTW, please check the parent comments to which I responded.
PS. I think it would be useful for others if you elaborated on your statements (for educational purposes).
Generating keys exclusively in (non-backup-able) secure hardware is great if your scenario readily supports multiple keys per server/domain you're authenticating in.
Creating an airgapped backup and loading that into a "daily driver" Yubikey marked as non-exportable can be perfectly fine if that's not the case and you don't want to notify the world every time you're adding or retiring a new Yubikey (for reasons other than key compromise).
I’ve been putting off remaking my GPG and SSH keys using a Yubikey.
personal-cipher-preferences CHACHA20 AES256 AES192
personal-digest-preferences BLAKE2B SHA512 SHA384 SHA256
personal-compress-preferences Uncompressed
personal-aead-preferences OCB EAX
default-preference-list BLAKE2B SHA512 SHA384 SHA256 CHACHA20 AES256 AES192 Uncompressed OCB EAX
cert-digest-algo BLAKE2B
s2k-digest-algo BLAKE2B
s2k-cipher-algo CHACHA20
s2k-count 65011712
charset utf-8
no-comments
no-emit-version
no-greeting
keyid-format 0xlong
list-options show-uid-validity
verify-options show-uid-validity
with-fingerprint
require-cross-certification
require-secmem
no-symkey-cache
armor
use-agent
throw-keyids
weak-digest SHA1 RIPEMD160 MD5
disable-cipher-algo 3DES CAST5 IDEA BLOWFISH TWOFISH CAMELLIA128 CAMELLIA192 CAMELLIA256
disable-pubkey-algo RSA1024
trust-model tofu+pgp
keyserver hkps://keys.openpgp.org
keyserver-options no-honor-keyserver-url
keyserver-options include-revoked
keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve
force-mdc
require-compliance
compliance de-vs
compliance de-vs
Short answer is that it does not.
This is why you should use a device which allows exporting the seed, like e.g. multi purpose hardware crypto wallets.
With SSH, you can always share the primary and backup pub keys, even if you don't have the backup key handy.
Huh ?
You do know you can wrap a symmetric key with multiple asymmetric keys, right ?
But SSH allows you to export the public key and then you can enroll it on as many hosts as you want without needing access to the private key, so the backup key can remain in a safe, ideally forever as you should never need it.
There's also no technical obstacle preventing anyone from creating "paired" hardware authenticators that share the same internal root derivation key and can as such authenticate to all services (at least if they don't demand resident credentials) that were registered to any of the keys in the set.
The fact that these keys don't exist on the market (I believe Yubikey looked into them a while ago) more is evidence for the lack of demand, and less for the existence of a cabal, in my view.
Authenticator implementations who allow exports outside of the vendor cartel are threatened to be blacklisted: https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10407
> My primary hardware key can be from a completely different vendor than the backup one, so I don't quite buy the conspiracy angle.
The fundamental flaw is that enrolling an authenticator requires it to be present, making a backup strategy much less resilient as it means your secondary device needs to be constantly present and thus exposed to the same local/environmental risks the primary one is (theft/fire/faulty USB port that fries everything plugged in and you only realize after nuking both your keys). It makes an offline backup scenario like with SSH (where you copy a public key and otherwise leave the authenticator out of reach in a safe place) impossible.
Making it hard/impractical to maintain a reliable backup yourself sure makes those proprietary sync-based services attractive, which also doubles as reducing security since key material is being synced and can potentially be extracted (impossible with a true HSM + PKI implementation).
> preventing anyone from creating "paired" hardware authenticators
Don't certain types of keys involve writing something to the authenticator, fundamentally preventing this (as the backup authenticator won't get this written value)?
> cabal
It doesn't have to be explicit coordinated action like intentionally wanting to prevent people from self-managing passkeys (in fact any hint of it being intentional would be a liability in a potential anti-trust situation, so that's a big no-no); it can be done by simply omitting this scenario, by accident or for "security" purposes, or deprioritizing it to hell. In fact the Credential Migration spec is still a draft and appears quite recent, despite passkeys being heavily promoted for a while: https://fidoalliance.org/specs/cx/cxp-v1.0-wd-20241003.html - you'd think that such as basic feature would be sorted before the push to switch to passkeys no?
In fact you see this exact strategy playing out: https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/11363#iss...
> For the initial delivery of Credential Exchange, we focused on the most wide use case [emphasis mine]
"Initial" delivery focuses on the most widespread use-case (how convenient it also happens to be the most corporation-friendly use-case), with everything else coming "later", meaning never. I'm sure it'll rot in some Jira backlog as a liability shield so they can promise they did plan for it and just never got around to it, but everyone understands it will never actually get implemented.
> The fundamental flaw is that enrolling an authenticator requires it to be present [...]
Yes, but that doesn't mean you can't backup the full authenticator state.
Here's a toy WebAuthN implementation that is backed by a passphrase that you remember or write on a piece of paper which works on many websites supporting passkeys and not enforcing attestation (which is the vast majority, since Apple, Google, 1Password, and Bitwarden all don't support attestation for synchronized credentials a.k.a. passkeys): https://github.com/lxgr/brainchain
> Making it hard/impractical to maintain a reliable backup yourself sure makes those proprietary sync-based services attractive
It's also completely open source and can be backed up :) (But again, it's a toy demo – don't use it for anything sensitive!)
All they have to do is publish a "best practices" statement or some RP certification program mandating attestation to be used (and some PR around how only "certified" RPs are secure) and job done. The only reason they didn't do that yet is that Apple is refusing to play ball and support attestation (but this may change).
The threat was clearly there in the original Github issue, and it's just a temporary inconvenience they can't currently follow through on it.
> Yes, but that doesn't mean you can't backup the full authenticator state.
Having the secondary authenticator present in the same vicinity as the primary one exposes it to risks. Having to dump authenticator state at regular intervals now means your backup authenticator must be reachable for writing online, so it can't be a simple "cold storage" backup like a Yubikey in a safe anymore. This also opens up security concerns since you're now dumping and syncing private keys left and right over a network and you lose the peace of mind of using an HSM-backed non-exportable private key where the HSM being unplugged guarantees nobody is currently using your keys.
Seems like a shit ton of complexity and effort to work around a problem OpenSSH elegantly solved 30 years ago.
> Here's a toy WebAuthN implementation
Thanks, I will check it out and read up on it. I'd be genuinely happy to move to WebAuthn if I could build my own hardware authenticators that allow the backup one to remain fully offline in a safe, and not have private keys flying around (if I'm doing that, it's not much of an improvement over syncing passwords - except those I can at least type or tell over the phone in an emergency when I need someone else to act on my behalf).
Edit: so it seems like I am mostly right? Only discoverable credentials count as "passkeys", and those generate per-site private keys, meaning offline, cold-storage backups are impossible. I guess I'm sticking to my password manager then since passkeys would provide no improvement in this case.
Again, you don't inherently have to do this if you only use non-resident keys (which many sites allow; my hardware authenticator does not even support resident keys).
Synchronized resident keys are not the only possible WebAuthN implementation, even though they are getting currently heavily pushed by big stakeholders. The big advantage they come with, though, is that they lost hardware attestation in the process, so everybody is free to use their own implementation instead.
Thinking about it some more: I'm pretty sure that there are crypto wallets that support FIDO (or maybe just U2F, i.e. the predecessor of CTAP2?) as a secondary application, and they are almost always based on a passphrase you can back up and replicate across authenticators as you wish.
> Seems like a shit ton of complexity and effort to work around a problem OpenSSH elegantly solved 30 years ago.
There are very good reasons for requiring the private key at registration time and for mandatory per-site keys in WebAuthN/FIDO, which are arguably the two main differences between WebAuthN and SSH at a protocol level:
Global keys would be a privacy nightmare (as they would become global identifiers), and being able to register a public key without a private key risks both users accidentally registering a key they don't have access to (i.e. availability), and getting social engineered into registering somebody else's key that is not even physically present with them.
But again, per-site keys can absolutely be implemented without having to keep state on the authenticator, since they can be deterministically derived from a root secret.
Not for SSH (at least using the OpenSSH sk implementation).