Comparison With Keybase SSH CA


With the launch of Keybase SSH CA several days ago, some questions have come in about what the differences are between NetAuth and Keybase SSH. Both services provide a means of managing keys that is better than copying them around by hand. Both services are easier to setup than massive corporate SSO platforms. However, there are many differences between them. This article tries to explain what the differences are, and when you might use each solution.

Lets start out with a brief overview of what Keybase SSH is. It is, as you might guess from the name, an SSH CA provided by and using the Keybase infrastructure. What is an SSH CA you might ask? An SSH CA is a Certificate Authority that can be used to secure communications over SSH. The idea is that rather than using an SSH key which has no expiration date and is non-trivial to expire from a number of hosts to use a certificate instead. Certificates can be expired with the use of a CRL, they can be time bound to very short intervals, and the infrastructure that operates a CA is well understood and battle tested.

Keybase issues the certificates with the use of a custom CA which an end user would run on a (hopefully) dedicated machine in a very secure location. This machine has to be secure, because if it is compromised then the security of the underlying CA must also be assumed to be compromised. Once the CA is known to be breached, it is good practice to assume that anything else it was securing has been breached, even if no evidence of this can be produced right away. Its far better to be safe than sorry in this case.

Keybase is a very impressive system, and it is the author’s opinion that more organizations should be using SSH certificates than currently are. Keybase and NetAuth though are different mechanisms, so lets now look at what NetAuth provides to handle your SSH keys.

NetAuth doesn’t attempt to get into the CA business, and it doesn’t attempt to issue your keys or otherwise provide you a means of generating new ones. What it does do is store standard SSH keys and provide a way to get them back. Through the use of the AuthorizedKeysCommand it is possible to retrieve keys from a remote store to use with a local sshd. NetAuth provides this remote store. Now that we know what each one does and roughly how it does it, lets look at how these systems are different.

The biggest difference is what your actual login looks like. Since Keybase is only providing a certificate for a team level, everyone on the team is logged on as a single user to the machine. From the machine’s perspective, it is impossible to tell who has logged in, or if multiple people were logged in simultaneously, as they will all be authenticated as the same user. You can of course review the CA’s logs to determine who requested a particular certificate for a particular machine at a particular time, but this is not knowledge that would be instantly available to a host in the same way as calling getpwnam on a logged in user.

In contrast, NetAuth provides an identity to go with the key, so with an appropriate NSS configuration, each login is tied to a specific entity. This can provide far more granular access than just logging in as a particular team, but the utility of this granularity is somewhat environment specific. This is an advantage in environments where it is necessary to know at the time of login who is logging in.

Another area the systems differ is how a key is revoked or expired. For the purposes of this article, both cases will be treated as a key replacement, with the case of removing a key being treated as replacement with an empty key. In the Keybase case, the key will expire after a limited amount of time, and a new key must be obtained. This time limit is what makes SSH CAs so useful: you can ensure that after a key is no longer in use, it is truly dead.

In the NetAuth case, keys can be removed at any time, and they will disappear within a few hundred milliseconds from the keys available to client machines. For replicated NetAuth servers this time also depends on the replication lag, but it is still within a few milliseconds after the replication has completed. Since the keys are provided to the end system via the AuthorizedKeysCommand directive, and best practices dictate that users using this mechanism should not be able to install keys via any other means, it can be assured that once a key has been removed from the store of usable keys, no copies of it remain available for use.

A final point that is primarily of interest to organizations: you can run NetAuth entirely within your security perimeter. This may not sound like much, but its worth remembering that while you can audit the code that provides the SSH CA functionality, you cannot audit the closed-source servers that Keybase uses to provide the access control to that CA. While the central Keybase server hasn’t yet been shown to have bugs, in certain regulatory regimes the lack of visibility into the server makes it difficult to consume. When this is combined with the fact that the SSH CA currently only supports group level visibility, not individual visibility (which it can’t without an NSS module or some user provisioning system), the Keybase CA seems to be targeted at hobbyist users or very small organizations.

Hopefully this has shed some light on what is different between the Keybase SSH CA and NetAuth’s own key management solution. If you have questions or want to discuss this article, feel free to join the discussion in #netauth on freenode.