GitHub.com posted their RSA SSH key for the world to see

GitHub.com posted their RSA SSH key for the world to see - BEWARE github.blog/2023-03-23-we-updated-our-rsa-ssh-host-key/

1530 sats \ 22 comments \ @davidw 24 Mar 2023 bitcoin

view all related items

416 sats \ 5 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 24 Mar 2023

At least they updated the key within a few days? Still, that's pretty embarrassing to post their private key in a public repo

70 sats \ 2 replies \ @davidw OP 24 Mar 2023

GitHub is a humungous liability for the whole internet. Every project needs to now consider alternatives.

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @deleted231216 24 Mar 2023

Gitea is nice, open source and self-hostable (especially if you already have a VPS for your project). It's also possible to mirror or backup Github/Gitlab repos. AFAIK Gitea is working on a federation feature, so you could browse all federated repos (improves discoverability) and commit with a single sign-on.

Codeberg.org is a public registration Gitea instance (also offers a similar service to Github Pages for static websites). HackLiberty.org also operates a Gitea instance.

Otherwise there is a bounty for an implementation of Git on Nostr: https://bountsr.org/nostr-based-github/ Some projects here: https://makers.bolt.fun/project/git-nostr and https://makers.bolt.fun/project/nostrya

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 24 Mar 2023

I want to switch from gitolite to soft-serve in the near future. Do you have any experience with it?

122 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 24 Mar 2023

This week, we discovered that GitHub.com’s RSA SSH private key was briefly exposed in a public GitHub repository.

They only said when they discovered the leak. Not when the leak started.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 24 Mar 2023

That is a great clarification!

295 sats \ 0 replies \ @davidw OP 24 Mar 2023

At approximately 05:00 UTC on March 24, out of an “abundance of caution” we replaced our RSA SSH host key used to secure Git operations for GitHub.com
The exposure was the result of what we believe to be an inadvertent publishing of private information
We have no reason to believe that the private key was abused (yet!)

Internet archive link here also - https://web.archive.org/web/20230324071940/https://github.blog/2023-03-23-we-updated-our-rsa-ssh-host-key/

359 sats \ 4 replies \ @xanny 24 Mar 2023

Still using RSA in 2023 as well lol.

EdDSA ftw.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 24 Mar 2023

Backwards compatibility.

They mentioned their ECDSA and ED25519 key are not affected so they also use them.

Also, this incident has nothing to do with RSA. Could have happened with ECDSA and ED25519, too, no?

3 sats \ 2 replies \ @xanny 24 Mar 2023

Yes the incident is human error, but it reflects poor OPSEC - considering how big GitHub is, how difficult would it be to store their private keys only on Yubikeys or similar airgrapped devices instead of having them stored in plaintext where they can be accidentally copy/pasted? This is literally OPSEC 101 and these guys are owned by one of the biggest tech companies in the world. What else are they dropping the ball on?

Fair play on the backwards compatibility - missed that they also have ECDSA and EdDSA keys as well.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 24 Mar 2023

I totally agree with you. I just didn't get what RSA has to do with this lol

108 sats \ 0 replies \ @xanny 24 Mar 2023

RSA is old (literally from 1977!), slow (because huge keys are required to make it non-trivial to brute force), and overall less secure than modern elliptic curve cryptography.

As I said though, I missed that they also have EdDSA and ECDSA keys when I skimmed the article during my lunch break. Since the RSA key is only for backwards compatibility it isn't an issue. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

101 sats \ 9 replies \ @ek 24 Mar 2023

Hey, I posted this before you xD

#156121

No worries though, just wanted point out how timing is sometimes relevant which post gets upvotes, lol

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @davidw OP 24 Mar 2023

Hmm… I thought SN checks for duplicates before posting the url 🤔

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek 24 Mar 2023

It does but it doesn't prevent duplicates. Maybe you clicked on "post" too fast since it takes 1-2 seconds to load the duplicates?

https://i.postimg.cc/T2VrV576/2023-03-24-163434-743x395-scrot.png

3 sats \ 6 replies \ @davidw OP 24 Mar 2023

I think that might be it. Given was posting from mobile 🤦‍♂️ My bad

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 24 Mar 2023

/cc @k00b

might be useful to disable posting until duplicates are loaded (or a timeout is reached)

25 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 24 Mar 2023

@cointastical has been asking for this for a long time. I'm open to it if the UX can be made good.