First, thanks for your brutality. It's good to know that a service like this (which deals with such sensitive content) is treated suspiciously at first.
Second, a few commenters have shown that it may be possible to reduce the MitM aspect by pushing more work into the browser with a method that could also provide end to end encryption. We're going to look into this thoroughly because we thought it was impossible at first, but I'm also curious if that would change your mind at all about using the service. At the very least, it would improve our users' security, so we're still going to see if we can do it.
Third, I do want to emphasize that we encourage users to create multiple keys to use, so that they have lots of power over granting and revoking server access via those keys (kind of like a new proxy credit card in your example, I guess). There are lots of ways a service like Shellvault could accidentally encourage poor habits, and we're working very hard to encourage good ones instead.
Thanks!
Because free shit don't make money, yo.
If it was self hosted and open there'd at least be the tiny chance of a support contract.
https://github.com/billchurch/WebSSH2 https://github.com/stuicey/SSHy
* You hand over the keys to the castle (multiple keys or not -- thats irrelevant) * You specifically route traffic through a midpoint that by all means has access to inspect the traffic. You have to trust both that the operators of the service will not do this AND that there is no compromise of the service with no way to verify.
on a more serious note, as you described but maybe from a more grumpy person: i don't think it's a great service, as it just compromises credentials by default while a normal configuration could solve it.
if the server is also hosting some https website, then put it on an alternate ipv6 address (they are free if not cheap) and ssh into that. you only need to edit 2 files on your server for that to work :s why pay 5$ a month if you already have a capable server you are paying for??
the promise of not storing credentials etc. is nice, but if your servers are compromised it will be childsplay for efarious people to intercept them even if you didn't design that aspect to happen in the service design.
There's also sslh, which can multiplex the same port by detecting whether the incoming connection is TLS or SSH, and forwarding appropriately. It's pretty cool: https://www.rutschle.net/tech/sslh/README.html
That said, I think this service is for people who need to use computers without ssh clients installed locally.
Could you explain what you mean by this? I get not everyone wants this, but just making SSH listen on port 443 doesn't give you access on a computer without an SSH client.
A self hosted version of this might make a little more sense. However, it is still putting all your credentials in one place.
The business idea is basically this: hand me your credit card, I go to your favorite ATM, get some money and hand it to you. It is great service!
Yes, a great service for some, but why would I give the most sensible credentials I own to a third-party? SSH tries to avoid man-in-the-middle attack. This is a man-in-the-middle attack as a service.