Is it really dangerous to log into compromised machines, though?
I think unless one does something stupid like SSH agent forwarding or using shared passwords, it should be safe even if machine is totally compromised.
If you fetch a remote binary or script to your dev machine and run it, your dev machine could be compromised -- but I am not sure why would anyone want to do this.
If you specify X forwarding, then anyone can own you. But you should not have any X apps on the remote server to begin with.
If you are transferring files, then vulnerabilities in rsync/rcp could get you. But those would have to be on the client side, your desktop machine -- and hopefully this machine is well patched.
If you are using IP filters / the machine is on LAN, then yes, it could be bad. But in this case, the machine was on the public network.
There was old bug with "get window title" putting stuff into input buffer, but it was fixed years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I think you do want to keep the machines up to date, and one should always enable unattended updates.
But I also believe in defense-in-depth, so if one is "managing more critical pieces of infrastructure", they should always assume the remote machine they are managing is compromised, and always take precautions.
Generally speaking though you're correct though - keep your client up to date and you'll be protected from a hacked server.
Clients are in general expose much larger attack surfaces in many cases, so likely will have more frequent and significant security patches. There's a lot more to attack in a web browser than in say, Nginx.
I think unless one does something stupid like SSH agent forwarding or using shared passwords, it should be safe even if machine is totally compromised.
If you fetch a remote binary or script to your dev machine and run it, your dev machine could be compromised -- but I am not sure why would anyone want to do this.
If you specify X forwarding, then anyone can own you. But you should not have any X apps on the remote server to begin with.
If you are transferring files, then vulnerabilities in rsync/rcp could get you. But those would have to be on the client side, your desktop machine -- and hopefully this machine is well patched.
If you are using IP filters / the machine is on LAN, then yes, it could be bad. But in this case, the machine was on the public network.
There was old bug with "get window title" putting stuff into input buffer, but it was fixed years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I think you do want to keep the machines up to date, and one should always enable unattended updates.
But I also believe in defense-in-depth, so if one is "managing more critical pieces of infrastructure", they should always assume the remote machine they are managing is compromised, and always take precautions.