Re: Algorithms: who's at fault here?

[email protected] on behalf of Simon Josefsson writes:

>I think it makes sense to have at least two MUST algorithms for a security
>protocol that are based on different mathematical properties. RSA-SHA256 and
>25519-sha256 seems like popular and proven algorithms.

I would strongly prefer ecdsa-sha2-nistp256 over the 25519 ones, the former is
pretty widely supported while the latter is rarely available outside a few big
implementations.

More generally, it'd be good to have:

diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256
ecdh-sha2-nistp256

rsa-sha2-256
ecdsa-sha2-nistp256

aes128-cbc

hmac-sha2-256

as MUSTS so you know you've got a basic set of parameters that will work.

When it comes to the more obscure SSH implementations there's a neverending
set of weirdo fashion-statement algorithms and mechanisms that people seem to
want to enable while disabling any standard MTI ones.  This is fine when the
server is OpenSSH or the client is Putty, which implement everything in
existence, but a real pain for interop when you don't implement every single
algorithm ever dreamed up for SSH, including nonstandard semi-documented
proprietary ones.  For this reason my code has for several years now included
special checks for, and error messages explaining, that the other side has
enabled some oddball algorithm but none of the MTI ones and could they get the
other side to fix their config.  This level of custom coding and handling
shouldn't be necessary just to get A to talk to B.

Peter