From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF3896005A for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:48:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C61D01B792 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:48:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 520001B788 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:48:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 19BE844226 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:48:48 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:48:12 +0100 From: Oguz Bektas To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Message-ID: <20201202124812.GG7591@gaia.proxmox.com> References: <20201119145608.16866-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> <20201202105650.GA7591@gaia.proxmox.com> <4c361a22-5caa-db5e-66b9-046638048fd5@proxmox.com> <38009c45-bb37-ea54-2fd7-545e2550810d@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <38009c45-bb37-ea54-2fd7-545e2550810d@proxmox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.453 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [RFC backup 0/6] Two factor authentication X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 12:48:48 -0000 On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 01:34:25PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 02.12.20 13:27, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > > - file could get leaked in a backup etc., giving everyone's tfa secrets > > and/or recovery keys to attackers (bypass everything) > > for the record, that does *not* "bypass everything", it's a *second* factor > after all. yes "bypass everything" was a bit of overstatement on my end.. :) > Further, if recovery keys are hashed they do not leak information. the totp secrets are stored without hashing or encryption so it'd bypass that one if file is leaked etc. > For others it varies, but I do not like that sort of blanket statement without > implying any reasonable vector at all, we and most unix system have such > information in one place /etc/shadow, our shadow in /etc/pve/ and consorts, > it needs clear documentation about what files are sensible (you should send a > patch for that) but that's it. > (and as said, splitting it up will not avoid leaking all of them in a backup vs. just > one of it). i was also thinking if it's a good idea to use a symmetric algorithm to encrypt the json file with that user's password. it would help in backup leak or similar cases, but could also be overhead (need to decrypt/encrypt the file everytime it's changed, need to re-encrypt if user changes password etc.) >