News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Slack clone in 5 lines of bash by siilikuin on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @12:22PM (#36602662)
Chapter 8 of The Linux Programming Interface mentions that applications running on Linux have basically 2 options for authentication:

* Roll it themselves, maintain the database and all that jazz * Delegate it to the (very robust, very mature) Linux user authentication stuff

Ever since reading that I've found myself wondering why more apps don't simply use SSH keypairs for authentication, given that they're already such a battletested mechanism. I get the whole "no MFA!" argument, but still.

Re:A Slack clone in 5 lines of bash by pjlegato on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @12:59PM (#36603290)
SSH has supported MFA for decades: https://www.google.com/search?q=ssh+mfa
Re:A Slack clone in 5 lines of bash by themoonisachees on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @01:06PM (#36603414)
If we really wanted MFA, we could roll a PAM module, and whatever pushes SSH authorized keys could also push MFA seeds. But IMO this would protect against very unusual attacks and annoy ssh agents users everywhere.
Re:A Slack clone in 5 lines of bash by throwawaymobule on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @05:53PM (#36607693)
Doing MFA for ssh like that would satisfy some compliance issues, wherever that matters. Probably key+pass.
Re:A Slack clone in 5 lines of bash by siilikuin on Thursday July 06, 2023 @08:57AM (#36615055)
Lol. I actually use `ssh` with 2FA at my own job, I was just having some fun nerdsniping. You're right, it's very valuable for compliance reasons