[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Securing local host of reverse SSH tunnel?



On 9/15/20 8:53 PM, Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY wrote:
> Nate Bargmann writes:
> 
>> I am going to be deploying a Debian system at a location where I am
>> unsure if I can make any inbound connection into that system.  I am
>> going to set up an SSH tunnel from that system to a host in my LAN.
>> What I am concerned about is the remote possibility of theft and
>> therefore exposing my LAN to an inbound connection where a shell prompt
>> can be obtained.  I will be setting up a private/public key pair.  My
>> plan is to SSH into the internal host and then initiate an SSH
>> connection to the defined port and ultimately log into the remote
>> system.
>>
>> The site is physically secure, but ...  While I understand that at the
>> remote end I can instruct the SSH client not to request a pseudo tty, if
>> a thief has the private key, all he needs to do is initiate a connection
>> and get a shell prompt on my internal host (due to being run from a
>> startup script, the private key cannot be password protected, or can
>> it?).
>>
>> What I would like to do is in some way configure the ssh daemon on my
>> internal host to not allow any access other than allocating the port for
>> the reverse connection.  Ideally, this restriction should be based on
>> the public key of the pair but I've not seen in sshd_config(5) a way for
>> the Match directive to use the public key as its trigger.
> 
> To restrict what an SSH account can do, you can use the command="..."
> setting in the autorized_keys file.  It is documented in sshd(8).  I use
> it specifically to restrain the possible actions that can be done with
> that private key.  As the command, you can use any program or script
> that can check the arguments and perform the requested action, without
> allowing any unforeseen action.
> 
> --
> Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY
> PGP 015AE9B25DCB0511D200A75DE5674DEA514C891D
> 

btw, there is package authprogs, doing exactly that and not only.


Reply to: