I think you bring up a fine point. Most applications have encryption built in and transparent to the user. While technical IT people in charge of infrastructure will not make this assumption, it is not unreasonable, at the same time, for small business / individual users, to not understand or know of this limitation.
VNC does not, for example, and you need to set up port forwarding through ssh.
X2Go does....but I don't trust it terribly. So, RustDesk..what do you need to wrap it in? ssh?
I really want a better solution that VNC/X2Go..especially since I use hardware accelerated apps that need to use VGL to operate correctly (but underwhich operation is quite buggy).
I disagree, modern software should make encrypted connections over something like HTTP3 or QUIC directly so true secure end to end connectivity works. This would make VPN software such as tailscale obsolete.
I'm also in favor of adding encrypted connections to RustDesk, not to replace tailscale, but as a part of this complete breakfast. Tailscale provides mutually authenticated, authorized L3 access. TLS can be configured to provide mutually authenticated L4 access. With a little OIDC/webauthn setup, both L3/L4 support device attestation, meaning there's no way to connect without e.g. a yubikey (or perhaps an enrolled TPM.)
Your statement is not entirely accurate. This only applies when using Direct IP Access on local networks, which is off by default. Their justification and invitation to PRs is the final comment [1] on the issue you linked. Why are you leaving this information out of your comment?
VNC and RustDesk are both remote desktop solutions, however, Rustdesk is considerably more performant than the VNC family, because the latter primarily sends framebuffer updates, while the former can use modern video codecs and temporal compression to encode screen changes much more efficiently.
> Rustdesk is considerably more performant than the VNC family
It consumes, on the client, 800%-1200% CPU AND 8%-10% GPU decode on my NVIDIA card. I opened a bug and they transformed it into a discussion, without any response.
Well first there was TeamViewer which was VNC with more bells and whistles then it became enshittified. Then anydesk came along and ate up teamviewer then that became enshittified, Now we have rustdesk which seems to hopefully be a bit more immune to being enshittified.
If you already use VNC this is not something for you
I've noticed that RealVNC has hidden their formerly free VNC desktop client, now called RealVNC Classic Viewer, behind an enterprise subscription login, and replaced it with a different cloud first thing, RealVNC Connect Viewer, that requires a login to at least obtain, and is anemic in terms of features.
Not that RealVNC is VNC. However, enshittification has clearly taken another scalp.
VNC is one way of doing remote GUI access (well, more a family of different protocols and products with different capabilities and tradeoffs). RustDesk is just another product that does the same thing but doesn't have a specific connection to VNC as a protocol so e.g. doesn't have to handle legacy authentication modes and stream formats. In my experience most remote access solutions beat VNC for performance, for example.
Usually the way to be able to even get the login screen is to use DRM/KMS based capture and use uinput for device emulation. It doesn't strictly need root but it does need privileges a user wouldn't have, like access to the DRM card nodes and uinput device. Sunshine does it this way.
It entirely sidesteps the problem of X vs Wayland, although this does mean the unattended physical seat can be physically taken over while you are remote.
It's open-source, so just build it yourself with the tiny change. Something this trivial could be done with a 30 second prompt at this point, so there's not even an excuse of "too much effort".
I will note that the XKCD password scheme being proposed there is, in fact, completely insecure. A modern consumer GPU can crack "four random English words" in a day. You can argue that it's the user's choice to be allowed to use insecure passwords, but arguing that that scheme is actually secure is just wrong.
> A modern consumer GPU can crack "four random English words" in a day.
Let's run the math:
EFF's long wordlist[0] (the one used by Bitwarden's passphrase generator) has 7776 words, which is about 13 bits of entropy per word (log2(7776) = 12.92). A 4-word passphrase then has 51.7 bits of entropy, meaning there are 2^51.7 possible options for the passphrase, which is 3.66E15 possible options.
For reference, a password with all completely random characters and symbols, for each character you have 70 possibilities, or about 6 bits of entropy. An 8-character completely random password (no words or the usual patterns) then has about 49 bits of entropy, which is less than a 4 word passphrase.
About the time it takes to crack it, assuming you can test an average of 1 password per μs (you probably can't, as passwords are usually stored using key derivation functions[1][2] with work factors tweaked for current hardware) it would take ~116 years to crack it. I usually see 5-passphrase recommended nowadays, which would multiply the required effort by 7776.
Sure, a 16-character random password has a lot more entropy, but it's also a lot harder to interact with (reading, comparing, typing) if you end up needing to, and it's still easier to crack than an 8-word passphrase.
> assuming you can test an average of 1 password per μs (you probably can't, as passwords are usually stored using key derivation functions
You are not (usually) in control of what services use to encrypt your password, and most software in the world uses a basic hash like MD5 or SHA-256 rather than a key derivation function, meaning you are wildly, wildly underestimating the number of guesses per second here. To suggest that passwords are "usually" stored like that is just wildly incorrect. Only well-educated, high-quality engineers who care about security, a vanishingly tiny portion of the industry, even think about things like this. I still run into government services that e-mail me my password in plaintext.
---
Sorry, but edit attaching a reply to another comment here because HN rate-limits me:
> This is just completely false.
My mid-tier laptop GPU can crack the usual wordlist in under 12 hours against MD5 (46 billion guesses per second), or about 3 days against SHA-256 (6.5 billion guesses per second). A desktop 4090 would likely crack SHA-256 in under a day (on average).
I make claims with confidence because I am speaking about facts. Why are you making claims with confidence when you have no idea what you're talking about? The quality of discourse on this site is so, so low.
> A modern consumer GPU can crack "four random English words" in a day. [...] but arguing that that scheme is actually secure is just wrong.
Let me do just that!
This is a networked service. You send your password (or a hashed form) to it, and it validates it. You don't have the local hash to bruteforce it offline.
Even if we only consider the top 10k english words, it's 10000^4. It's going to take years to bruteforce this over a network because you'll go through so many rate-limits, cooldown periods, and outright bans that it's questionable whether it's even possible.
> This is a networked service. You send your password (or a hashed form) to it
Hopefully neither. But given everybody involved in VNC seems to be the same batch of clueless morons who built all those PHP web forums twenty years ago with MD5 as the password hash, who knows what they cobbled together. Maybe an expert can chime in about what actually happens here?
Virtually any password other than "password123" is fine if you're rate limited to a few guesses per day by a networked service. Passwords should be secure against the inevitable data breach when the service you're using loses their hashed password database, which happens on a routine basis.
The "joy of the XKCD technique" is that it prescribes a specific format millions of people will use, and it's so trivial to break that you can throw it into your cracking algorithm at virtually no cost.
If you were willing to use a bespoke, more secure variation of it, you could include a capital letter and a number rather than filing an issue on a repo insisting that you be allowed to use exactly the insecure variation.
I think you are both greatly overestimating the number of people who remember what xkcd is and their willingness to do what a webcomic prescribes uncritically. What you describe as "bespoke" is likely the normal way someone might use it: with their chosen format.
For instance, I have multiple separator characters, multiple beginning and end characters, and numbers places at specific places, and arbitrary casing. That may be overkill but it's still essentially the xkcd format.
> I think you are both greatly overestimating the number of people who remember what xkcd is and their willingness to do what a webcomic prescribes uncritically
XKCD's youtube videos get millions of views each. It is a very popular comic, and that particular password advice has spread beyond it.
> What you describe as "bespoke" is likely the normal way someone might use it.
And yet the issue in question is about someone who refuses to adapt it.
The user in question might have their own personal format that doesn't meet the RustDesk constraints. E.g. they may not use capitals, but use `word1$word2&word3@word4`.
Tayloring your format to the requirements of each site is a step towards defeating the utility of the system; now the user needs to remember some arbitrary hard-to-remember details for each password.
Although having a standard format for your passphrases across sites removes some of the advantages over just using the exact xkdc format (when one of your passwords is compromised and attackers can guess your custom format elsewhere now)...
RustDesk works so much better and easier than vnc and other vendored solutions. No need to open ports, no need for vpn, it just works, no account BS, no vendor lock in BS.
I have used RustDesk for years, also run my own lookup/relay server so I do not need to rely on the public lookup server
While everything else gets enshitified RustDesk just keeps getting better
so this means I can be on a vacation, turn on my ubuntu desktop remotely, login and control it ? I have a strong need for this as my desktop is also a server
VNC does not, for example, and you need to set up port forwarding through ssh. X2Go does....but I don't trust it terribly. So, RustDesk..what do you need to wrap it in? ssh?
I really want a better solution that VNC/X2Go..especially since I use hardware accelerated apps that need to use VGL to operate correctly (but underwhich operation is quite buggy).
Please just make it work seamlessly with my existing SSH credentials. Like SFTP.
1 - https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/issues/3714#issuecommen...
Edit: i appreciate the explanations; thank you.
It consumes, on the client, 800%-1200% CPU AND 8%-10% GPU decode on my NVIDIA card. I opened a bug and they transformed it into a discussion, without any response.
If you already use VNC this is not something for you
Not that RealVNC is VNC. However, enshittification has clearly taken another scalp.
https://files.catbox.moe/d5ztxi.jpg
Does it framebuffer grab the current session and inject input events?
It entirely sidesteps the problem of X vs Wayland, although this does mean the unattended physical seat can be physically taken over while you are remote.
I will note that the XKCD password scheme being proposed there is, in fact, completely insecure. A modern consumer GPU can crack "four random English words" in a day. You can argue that it's the user's choice to be allowed to use insecure passwords, but arguing that that scheme is actually secure is just wrong.
Let's run the math:
EFF's long wordlist[0] (the one used by Bitwarden's passphrase generator) has 7776 words, which is about 13 bits of entropy per word (log2(7776) = 12.92). A 4-word passphrase then has 51.7 bits of entropy, meaning there are 2^51.7 possible options for the passphrase, which is 3.66E15 possible options.
For reference, a password with all completely random characters and symbols, for each character you have 70 possibilities, or about 6 bits of entropy. An 8-character completely random password (no words or the usual patterns) then has about 49 bits of entropy, which is less than a 4 word passphrase.
About the time it takes to crack it, assuming you can test an average of 1 password per μs (you probably can't, as passwords are usually stored using key derivation functions[1][2] with work factors tweaked for current hardware) it would take ~116 years to crack it. I usually see 5-passphrase recommended nowadays, which would multiply the required effort by 7776.
Sure, a 16-character random password has a lot more entropy, but it's also a lot harder to interact with (reading, comparing, typing) if you end up needing to, and it's still easier to crack than an 8-word passphrase.
[0] https://www.eff.org/dice [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_derivation_function [2] https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Stor...
You are not (usually) in control of what services use to encrypt your password, and most software in the world uses a basic hash like MD5 or SHA-256 rather than a key derivation function, meaning you are wildly, wildly underestimating the number of guesses per second here. To suggest that passwords are "usually" stored like that is just wildly incorrect. Only well-educated, high-quality engineers who care about security, a vanishingly tiny portion of the industry, even think about things like this. I still run into government services that e-mail me my password in plaintext.
---
Sorry, but edit attaching a reply to another comment here because HN rate-limits me:
> This is just completely false.
My mid-tier laptop GPU can crack the usual wordlist in under 12 hours against MD5 (46 billion guesses per second), or about 3 days against SHA-256 (6.5 billion guesses per second). A desktop 4090 would likely crack SHA-256 in under a day (on average).
I make claims with confidence because I am speaking about facts. Why are you making claims with confidence when you have no idea what you're talking about? The quality of discourse on this site is so, so low.
For passwords? Where do you get that information?
Let me do just that!
This is a networked service. You send your password (or a hashed form) to it, and it validates it. You don't have the local hash to bruteforce it offline.
Even if we only consider the top 10k english words, it's 10000^4. It's going to take years to bruteforce this over a network because you'll go through so many rate-limits, cooldown periods, and outright bans that it's questionable whether it's even possible.
Hopefully neither. But given everybody involved in VNC seems to be the same batch of clueless morons who built all those PHP web forums twenty years ago with MD5 as the password hash, who knows what they cobbled together. Maybe an expert can chime in about what actually happens here?
Yes, for a sensible scheme this can't work.
This is just completely false.
Sure, if you can rely on users using a specific format. The joy of the xkcd technique is you don't need to tell other people what yours is.
But, people just aren't going to remember strings of gibberish. Expecting users to do this is just silly.
If you were willing to use a bespoke, more secure variation of it, you could include a capital letter and a number rather than filing an issue on a repo insisting that you be allowed to use exactly the insecure variation.
For instance, I have multiple separator characters, multiple beginning and end characters, and numbers places at specific places, and arbitrary casing. That may be overkill but it's still essentially the xkcd format.
XKCD's youtube videos get millions of views each. It is a very popular comic, and that particular password advice has spread beyond it.
> What you describe as "bespoke" is likely the normal way someone might use it.
And yet the issue in question is about someone who refuses to adapt it.
Tayloring your format to the requirements of each site is a step towards defeating the utility of the system; now the user needs to remember some arbitrary hard-to-remember details for each password.
Although having a standard format for your passphrases across sites removes some of the advantages over just using the exact xkdc format (when one of your passwords is compromised and attackers can guess your custom format elsewhere now)...
Does this person exist?
I have used RustDesk for years, also run my own lookup/relay server so I do not need to rely on the public lookup server
While everything else gets enshitified RustDesk just keeps getting better
And the fact it's self-hosted is priceless.