Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:55:43 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wolfgang+gnus200611@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org, tech@openbsd.org Subject: Re: OpenSSH Certkey (PKI) Message-ID: <455CA61F.4060900@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <87ac2rjqaf.fsf@arbol.wsrcc.com> References: <20061115142820.GB14649@insomnia.benzedrine.cx> <87odr8i53w.fsf@arbol.wsrcc.com> <20061116135627.GA26343@tortuga.leo.org> <87ac2rjqaf.fsf@arbol.wsrcc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: > Daniel Lang <dl@leo.org> writes: > >>Are you, by any chance, mixing up "known_hosts" and "authorized_keys"? > > > Oops. I quoted the wrong section. I had meant to quote the section > about the user_certificates. This is what I meant to cite: > > +A user certificate is an authorization made by the CA that the > +holder of a specific private key may login to the server as a > +specific user, without the need of an authorized_keys file being > +present. The CA gains the power to grant individual users access > +to the server, and users do no longer need to maintain > +authorized_keys files of their own. > > I don't see a problem with the host certificates methodology. (In > fact I'd love to see the known_hosts files fade away as more hosts > transition to using host certificates.) Host certificate verification is separate from user authentication/authorization through certificates. You you can use one without using and enabling the other. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?455CA61F.4060900>