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.