you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Using password login renders this vulnerability useless.

This isn't the case, though I can see how the article could lead you to believe that.

It's directly based on password rather than key input. The entire vulnerability is that typing a password longer than 256 characters automatically defaults to crypt() outputting the * character instead of a normal password hash, which is coincidentally the same default character used as the "hash" (not actually a value you could get from a normal hash, intended to be impossible to get from any normal password for that reason) for the built-in daemon account.

When the Ars Technica article says "Second, the target system account must be configured to be passwordless", what they mean is the default daemon account, which has a hash set to * by default, and thus wouldn't normally be accessible via any hashed password... unless you happen to find out that the system chooses to not make a hash, and just send * if you type more than 256 characters.

Look at https://sshhole.com/ if you want the details.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 23 hours ago

    Technically they're correct though, in a way. If every account has a password, the system isn't vulnerable.

    You're also not vulnerable if you use two factor auth, because all 2FA modules require PAM, whereas this vulnerability only exists when PAM is disabled or not installed.

  • source
  • parent