Re: DH group exchange (Re: SSH key algorithm updates)
"Mark D. Baushke" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Niels =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6ller?= <[email protected]> writes: > "Mark D. Baushke" <[email protected]> writes: > > > For now, does it seem reasonable to add RFC 3526 group15 & group16 to > > the protocol? > > > > diffie-hellman-group15-sha256 (3072-bit MODP group ~130 bits of securit= > y) > > diffie-hellman-group16-sha256 (4096-bit MODP group ~150 bits of securit= > y) > > I think it makes sense. It's good to have some specified algorithms > with security a bit beyond what's currently used, to make it easy to > move if/when needed attacks on the current algorithms emerge. Agreed. > Next question is what status they should have. I think it makes sense to > have group15 as RECOMMENDED. I agree with this suggestion. > (By the same argument, I think it makes sense to specify some > alternative to sha256 too, which I guess would be either sha512 or > sha3-384 (sha384 makes litte sense to me, since it's essentially a > truncated sha512, with same performance and shorter output)). Given your point about sha2-384, I think there are three possibilities that remain: sha2-512 sha3-256 sha3-512 There are aguments both in favor and against each of the alternatives. fwiw: I have no idea if the SSH community is ready to consider the use of sha3 (FIPS PUB 202 style) at this time, but it is more likely to be a challenge to the attacks on diffie-hellman I heard of to date. -- Mark