4 ms·
It's about time that we retire SHA-1 signature scheme. It'll be interesting to see how many older devices require updating.
by johnklos 6y ago
It's about time that we retire SHA-1 signature scheme. It'll be interesting to see how many older devices require updating.
- minedwiz 6y agoHell, my company uses Azure repos, and they're still stuck on ssh-rsa keys: https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/content/idea/365980/support-non-rsa-keys-for-ssh-authentication.html https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/content/idea/365...
- b0afc375b5 6y agoAlso aws: https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=250753 https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=250753
- gspr 6y agoThis isn't about wanting to replace RSA with Ed25519. The "ssh-rsa" method refers to RSA with SHA1 for hashing. It's the latter part that's the problem. The former is slightly inconvenient at worst (big keys).
- b0afc375b5 6y agoSure. But I was merely responding to the developercommunity forum post, which literally has the post body: > Currently only RSA keys are supported. The documentation doesn’t mention this fact; further, no error message is given when an *Ed25519* key is added. I wanted to express that this problem is not isolated to Azure.
- hannob 6y agoThere's really nothing wrong with RSA keys. This issue is about the combination of RSA with SHA1 hashes for signatures. Using RSA with sha2-hashes is fine. (Yes, I know some people generally want to see RSA go away, but almost all more general issues with RSA have to do with encryption and not signatures, so SSH is pretty much unaffected.)
- lxgr 6y ago> This issue is about the combination of RSA with SHA1 hashes for signatures. Is second preimage resistance actually relevant in the context of SSH authentication?