From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: jungleboogie0@gmail.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 8d89732b for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-x234.google.com (mail-it0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 85c5cd5f for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-x234.google.com with SMTP id s7-v6so3408873itb.4 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 09:40:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1dfc3b75-5737-0961-ba41-81d07e1e5c14@pobox.com> References: <20180810200346.0e9646ac@natsu> <1dfc3b75-5737-0961-ba41-81d07e1e5c14@pobox.com> From: jungle Boogie Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 09:40:36 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Reflections on WireGuard Design Goals To: Brian Candler Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 10 August 2018 at 09:03, Brian Candler wrote: > On 10/08/2018 16:03, Roman Mamedov wrote: > > But I'd feel a lot happier if a second level of authentication were > required to establish a wireguard connection, if no packets had been > flowing for more than a configurable amount of time - say, an hour. It > would give some comfort around lost/stolen devices. > > Couldn't you just encrypt your home directory? Or even the root FS entirely. > Either of those should be a must on a portable device storing valuable > information. > > But by analogy, would you say that SSH keys and PGP keys don't need > protection by a passphrase? > If someone already has my ssh key, I'd revoke it - regardless if they had the password or not. Same with the WG key - shutdown the tunnel, remove the affected peer and start it back up.