Re: DH group exchange (Re: SSH key algorithm updates)
"Mark D. Baushke" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Damien, Damien Miller <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015, Niels Möller wrote: > > > > It may also be desirable to setup a way that RFC 3526 groups: > > > > > > diffie-hellman-group14-sha256 (2048-bit MODP group - 112 bits of security) > > > diffie-hellman-group15-sha256 (3072-bit MODP group - 128 bits of security) > > > > > > diffie-hellman-group16-sha384 (4096-bit MODP group - ~150 bits of security) > > FWIW OpenSSH has been using RFC3526 group 16 as the fallback group for > group-exchange when it can't find a local pre-computed group list. Yes, I am aware that OpenSSH will fall back on group16 with either sha1 or sha2-256 depending on what key exchange method is being used. Given that OpenSSH is using group16 with sha2-256 preserves 128 bits of security, should there be a group16 using either sha2-384 or sha2-512 so that the maximum number of security bits is retained (security bits estimate for RFC 3526 is in this table: +--------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+ | Group | Modulus | Strength Estimate 1 | Strength Estimate 2 | | | +----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | | | exponent | | exponent | | | | in bits | size | in bits | size | +--------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | 5 | 1536-bit | 90 | 180- | 120 | 240- | | 14 | 2048-bit | 110 | 220- | 160 | 320- | | 15 | 3072-bit | 130 | 260- | 210 | 420- | | 16 | 4096-bit | 150 | 300- | 240 | 480- | | 17 | 6144-bit | 170 | 340- | 270 | 540- | | 18 | 8192-bit | 190 | 380- | 310 | 620- | +--------+----------+---------------------+---------------------+ so, group16 is nominally somewhere between 150-240 bits of security sha2-384 preserves 192 bits of security and sha2-512 preserves 256 bits of security. For that matter, I wonder if we want to take the time to specify "diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha512" for the larger group sizes while we have RFC4419bis in discussion? Curious, -- Mark