4 ms·
Good that arstechnica clearly explains that SHA-1 is the problem here. The protocol in question is called ssh-rsa, which easily leads to the misunderstanding th
by usr1106 6y ago
Good that arstechnica clearly explains that SHA-1 is the problem here. The protocol in question is called ssh-rsa, which easily leads to the misunderstanding that RSA keys would be deprecated.
If I as a non-cryptographer understood it correctly the keys can remain, but different fingerprints are needed. Is it so that you have fingerprints in known_hosts, but not in authorized_keys?
- mkj 6y agoThe authorized_keys file will not change. ssh-rsa as a key format will stay (it isn't specific to sha1 or sha2), just the client and server need to upgrade to sign/verify session-specific signatures using sha256 instead of sha1. rsasign(sha1(sessiondata)) becomes rsasign(sha256(sessiondata)). OpenSSH CA certificates are more urgent to upgrade since those are/were long lived sha1 signatures - sha1 there got disabled a couple of releases ago I think. The article seems bit sensational and lacking understanding.
- usr1106 6y agoThere are no fingerprints in authorized_keys. I should have looked into the file before speculating. So no updates to the file needed.