Wireless Network Key

[Leo Cacciari]

Il giorno mer, 06/08/2008 alle 11.10 -0400, Mark Haney ha scritto:
> Leo Cacciari wrote:
> 
> >>
> > This is excessively bad advice, and you even tell why it is bad. This is
> > done already by the gnome network manager. If n-m is installed and it
> > does not work, then it is another problem, but normally in ubuntu
> > wireless network works like that out of the box.
> > 
> > By the way, your is bad advice even if the OP has not n-m installed and
> > does not wish to install it, as then standard scripts like if-up
> > *already* have a much more secure (well, less insecure at least) way to
> > do that by writing the key in the 
> > /etc/network/interfaces file
> > 
> > 
> > Enjoy
> > 
> 
> <soapbox>
> 
> I totally disagree.  You really think having the key in 
> /etc/network/interfaces is any safer?  Or having it in NM is safer? 
> You're out of your mind.  Anyone who gets root access can dig it up and 
> steal it from anywhere those files are stored.
> 

Of course, but if someone stoles the hard disk, then changing the
wireless key (if they haven't stolen the AP too) seems standard
procedure, like if someone stoles your key-ring with your home key,
you'll change the lock, wouldn't you?

The true problem is if someone gets access to the account. If it only
get access to the user account, he/she would be able to read the key
contained in the shell script, thus leading to the security problem you
pointed out with your tip, but he/she would not be able to
read /etc/network/interfaces and the file where n-m stores the keys is
encrypted, thus accessing it without the user master key is useless.

If the intruder gains root access, then the password stored
in /etc/network/interface is obviously accessible, but the one stored in
the n-m file would still not be, unless he has access to the user master
key.
 
> I never said anything other than a shell script CAN be used.  I also 
> warn that it's a security risk and to lock it down tight.  Do you really 
> think I don't know that?   I deal with network security on a daily 
> basis.  I have 100K users on our network that I have to keep safe.
> 
> The point is (and MY point is) this method is possible, but NOT 
> encouraged.  He doesn't want to have to enter the key every time. 
> Entering the key every time IS the preferred and secure method of doing 
> this.

> It's sort of like not wanting to key in a password everytime and setting 
> autologin.  That's just as insecure (from a network security standpoint) 
> and scripting the wireless key.
> 
True, but who told you or the OP not to use a master password? None of
my keyrings is unblocked at login.

> I don't see the advice is /bad/, so much as it isn't recommend and it 
> does include the disclaimer that it's not recommended.  It's up to the 
> OP to determine if that is an acceptable risk.  It is not for me to 
> decide that and withold my information because I think it's a bad idea.

> Now, had I simply said 'sure throw it in a shell script' and NOT warned 
> the OP of the security risk, then you have every right to point that 
> out.  However, I believe in offering all alternatives ALONG with any 
> potential hazards therein.
> 
> So, flame all you want.  I stand by my post in that it gives the OP him 
> an alternative and a caveat to that so he can make up his own mind. 
> He's not a child (AFAIK) and can use that if he wishes.  It's not up to 
> YOU to determine what's bad advice.

I'm not flaming, but, as you said....
> Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt -- Caius Julius Caesar

Vale

-- 
Leo Cacciari
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Questa è una parte del messaggio	firmata digitalmente
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20080806/19f14841/attachment.sig>