Information Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for information security professionals. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I've set up my VPS'ssh server to accept only key-based identification: I disabled password-based connection.

As a consequence I am connecting from home with an RSA key generated prior to password disabling on my VPS. Of course I've copied the public key into the ~/.ssh/authorized file before that.

Now I want to do the same thing from work, generating a new key pair (I've read it is clearly better to generate a new key pair, one for each source of connection). I guess the best thing to do is to generate the key from my workplace. But then I am facing the issue of transferring the public key from my workplace to the VPS.

Since I disabled the password-based connection, I won't be able to transfer it directly from work.

I could re-enable password authentication just before returning to my workplace. And disable it from my workplace once I am able to connect into my VPS.

But then I would like to know: is it secure to send the public key by email to myself?

share|improve this question
up vote 22 down vote accepted

The public key is public, meaning that everybody can know it without endangering security. No problem in putting it in an email, then.

The potential issue would be an active attacker modifying the email while in transit, to replace your public key with his public key. To guard yourself against such attacks, compute a fingerprint of the file you are about to send by email (use the ubiquitous md5sum utility on it), and write the hash value on a piece of paper (which you keep in your wallet). When you are back at home, recompute the hash over the received file, and compare it with the value on the paper. If they match, then everything is fine.

share|improve this answer
Nitpicking & not downvoting for it, but since this is security.SE I think SHA would be more appropriate, especially since most *nix'es have them by default now & the cost isn't really relevant for a pubkey file. :) – TC1 Feb 25 '13 at 0:51
@TC1 In this particular case, md5 works as well as any of the SHA algorithms. – Terry Chia Feb 25 '13 at 1:14
@TC1: I just knew someone would have the reflex of "MD5 IS BAD BAD BAD". I used MD5 because its output is shorter; output length is important when you have to write it by hand on a piece of paper. For the usage described here, we work on second preimage resistance for which MD5 is still perfectly fine. – Thomas Pornin Feb 25 '13 at 12:36

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.