Re: Feedback on draft-ssh-ext-info-00

[email protected] (Niels Möller)
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.secsh
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Damien Miller <[email protected]> writes:

> The problem is that, for a client to test whether rsa-sha2-256 is supported,
> it must make publickey userauth with an included signature. A
> signature free PK_OK style request won't do since the key blob just
> contains ssh-rsa and not the signature algorithm.

Hmm. This sounds like a serious breakage, and if that's the case, we
really ought to use a new algorithm name also in the key blob.

But is it really so? Looking at RFC 5252, we have

      byte      SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_REQUEST
      string    user name in ISO-10646 UTF-8 encoding [RFC3629]
      string    service name in US-ASCII
      string    "publickey"
      boolean   FALSE
      string    public key algorithm name
      string    public key blob

and

      byte      SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_PK_OK
      string    public key algorithm name from the request
      string    public key blob from the request

I'd expect the "public key algorithm name" to be "ssh-rsa-sha2-256", and
then it's fine if the string inside the keyblob is "ssh-rsa". There's no
ambiguity as to what type of signature is intended.

Regards,
/Niels

-- 
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.