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 934E16025F for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:34:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 86D321B591 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:34:26 +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 2896B1B586 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:34:26 +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 E828F44817 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:34:25 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Oguz Bektas Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20201119145608.16866-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> <20201202105650.GA7591@gaia.proxmox.com> <4c361a22-5caa-db5e-66b9-046638048fd5@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <38009c45-bb37-ea54-2fd7-545e2550810d@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:34:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:84.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/84.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4c361a22-5caa-db5e-66b9-046638048fd5@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.076 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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 12:34:26 -0000 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* fact= or after all. Further, if recovery keys are hashed they do not leak informat= ion. For others it varies, but I do not like that sort of blanket statement wi= thout 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 consort= s, it needs clear documentation about what files are sensible (you should se= nd a patch for that) but that's it. (and as said, splitting it up will not avoid leaking all of them in a bac= kup vs. just one of it).