72
28
Before I started at my current job (at a small business), my office had no firewall on the network and literally nothing was ever being backed up. Now that I've signed on as a dedicated sysadmin / one-man-IT-department, I've been doing what I can to change this. After explaining to my boss how vulnerable we were, he's allowed me to set up some backup servers, one of which is at his house.
Right now, I'm trying to get everything set so that I can automate daily backups. I am planning to use rsync through ssh to do this. For security's sake as well as for ease of automation, I was planning to disable ssh password login and only use rsa key validation. Well, if I have an rsa passphrase set, then I would still have to enter a passsword, and that's a problem.
Does not having an rsa passphrase make things significantly less secure? I'm the only person in the company who has any sort of a clue about this kind of thing, so I'm not too worried about someone calling up a terminal on my machine (which is always locked when I'm AFK, anyway) and ssh-ing into one of the backup servers and doing any damage. I'm still very, very new to the world of systems administration, and this is my first time doing anything like this, and I don't want to leave any holes in the security setup.
The computers in question here are running Ubuntu 10.10, SME Server, and OSX 10.6, if that somehow makes any sort of a difference.
1Maybe it's just me, but I have no idea what the above comment is trying to say. – underscore_d – 2015-09-24T13:57:01.333
3@underscore_d He is basically saying: No impact on SSH security to have or not have passphrases for your keys BUT you have to keep your keys locally secure. – Hartator – 2016-01-26T16:46:54.653
5There really shouldn't be any loss in security by not having a passphrase on your key. Maintaining the security integrity of the key at this point becomes integral since if someone is able to copy it there is no secret key that would prevent them from using it. – Chris Marisic – 2011-03-23T15:02:33.897