From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Sat Dec 1 14:44:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2A521E803F for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 14:44:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.243 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.243 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hvqHIqrEvYWn for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 14:44:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2159D1F0C61 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 14:44:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id 9E7A314A1B6; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 22:44:30 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A7B14A19B for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 22:44:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id At79Pm_4MyJG for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 22:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG [216.46.5.7]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7395914A18C for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 22:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04952; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 17:44:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 17:44:25 -0500 (EST) From: Mouse Message-Id: <201212012244.RAA04952@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies. X-Composition-Start-Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 17:00:45 -0500 (EST) To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: Key fingerprints? Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org Precedence: list I've got a couple of suggestions for ssh implementors. SSH implementations - or at least a few of them - use key fingerprints to summarize keys to users, such as in "no host key saved for this host, here's the host key we got, accept it?" questions. As far as I can tell, how this is done is not standardized. 4251 appears to consider it an implementation choice, with a mild suggestion of SHA-1 hashes converted to hex. It seems to me it is in everyone's interest for fingerprints to be comparable between implementations, which calls for some kind of standardization, even if only de facto. When I was writing moussh I investigated this a ltitle bit and it appeared to me that the only other implementation I had at ready hand (some version of OpenSSH, probably) used MD5 hashes of the public-key data blobs, converted to hex with : used as an octet separator, a la 01:23:45:67:.... Since I wanted hashes fingerprints to be compatible, that's what I implemented. Since then, I've added a more compact - and, I find, easier to compare by eye - representation, the same data content as the hex style but represented in base 85 using most of the printable ASCII characters; moussh now prints both forms in most cases when it has occasion to print key fingerprints. I've also seen a two-dimensional "random art" representation, but I know nothing about the details behind it. On another note, MD5 is showing weaknesses. So far, all I've actually seen reported is collision failures, but I expect second-preimage failures to show up before too much longer. While there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room in key data blobs to take advantage of second preimages, there is some. So, I'd like to use something stronger than MD5, but I also don't want to disturb people by presenting fingeprints that appear to disagree with other implementations' fingerprints for the same keys. This means at least some degree of coordination with how other implementations compute and present fingerprints. So, here's what I'd like to do. To be useful, these need different implementors to work together, which is why I'm writing here: to suggest that we collaborate on these. - I'd like to collect specifications for the various fingerprint formats in use, with an eye to publishing them in some form, preferably with test vectors. I can do the collecting and collating, and, in a minimal form, the publishing (a text file up for FTP or HTTP fetch); if these are considered valuable enough, someone else might want to publish them in other way (such as, perhaps, an Informational RFC). - I'd like to come to some kind of agreement for how to compute and represent fingerprints in a way that's a bit more future-friendly with respect to hash algorithms than just printing hashes in hex. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Mon Dec 3 00:48:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC6821F86FA for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 00:48:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h-X4XocNjXXA for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 00:48:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F7821F86EF for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 00:48:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id ED97514A419; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FF614A3FF for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:48:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id bWVsabw5fqZO for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:48:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se [IPv6:2001:6b0:17:f0a0::3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F254214A3E7 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:48:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE534000B; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:47:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from stalhein.lysator.liu.se (stalhein.lysator.liu.se [IPv6:2001:6b0:17:f0a0::cc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B37764000A; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:47:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from stalhein.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stalhein.lysator.liu.se (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB38lvhU002762; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:47:57 +0100 (MET) Received: (from nisse@localhost) by stalhein.lysator.liu.se (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4/Submit) id qB38lt1r002761; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:47:55 +0100 (MET) From: nisse@lysator.liu.se (Niels =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=F6ller?=) To: Mouse Cc: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Key fingerprints? References: <201212012244.RAA04952@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:47:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <201212012244.RAA04952@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> (mouse@rodents-montreal.org's message of "Sat, 1 Dec 2012 17:44:25 -0500 (EST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org Precedence: list Mouse writes: > - I'd like to collect specifications for the various fingerprint > formats in use, with an eye to publishing them in some form, > preferably with test vectors. I can do the collecting and > collating, and, in a minimal form, the publishing (a text file up > for FTP or HTTP fetch); if these are considered valuable enough, > someone else might want to publish them in other way (such as, > perhaps, an Informational RFC). GNU lsh displays openssh-style md5 fingerprints, and ssh.com-style "bubble babble". E.g., lsh --sloppy www.lysator.liu.se shows Received unauthenticated key for host www.lysator.liu.se Key details: Bubble Babble: xemoc-kovyp-nehoz-zacod-mohek-hurep-hybag-hizog-fahob-dydug-sexix Fingerprint: 18:2a:ea:db:b5:1f:f2:83:fb:d0:24:45:f8:9a:fc:d6 There are no deep thoughts behind this, just an attempt to be compatible with what others do. > - I'd like to come to some kind of agreement for how to compute and > represent fingerprints in a way that's a bit more future-friendly > with respect to hash algorithms than just printing hashes in hex. I'm kind-of skeptic to displaying the fingerprint in some form intuitively recognizable and rememberable by humans. So I think the primary use case is for the user who actually have the expected fingerprint written down and wants to compare it to what's displayed on screen. I totally agree it would be nice to standardize the fingerprints. I think it would make sense to 1. Use a stronger hash function than md5, and if standardizing something new at this time I think it's prudent to also choose something stronger than sha1. 2. Consider carefully what length of the fingerprint really is needed, and if we think something shorter than 256 bits is good enough, truncate the output of sha256 or sha3-256 or whatever function is chosen. 3. Use some more compact and/or more readable alphabet than hex. I don't have an informed opinion on whether or not things like bubble-babble or the "random ascii-art" thing really helps users. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Mon Dec 3 08:20:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3398521F881F for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:20:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dtd4o9-gwFnP for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:20:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68ED121F8817 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:20:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id 63FA714A21A; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 16:20:34 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A5D14A245 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 16:20:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id 8l5UBlOZ3fIU for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 16:20:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG [216.46.5.7]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E686714A21A for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 16:20:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20252; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:20:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:20:28 -0500 (EST) From: Mouse Message-Id: <201212031620.LAA20252@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies. X-Composition-Start-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:54:06 -0500 (EST) To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Key fingerprints? In-Reply-To: References: <201212012244.RAA04952@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org Precedence: list >> - I'd like to collect specifications for the various fingerprint >> formats in use, [...] > GNU lsh displays openssh-style md5 fingerprints, and ssh.com-style > "bubble babble". This is just the sort of thing I was looking for; I'll have to see if I can dig up a spec for bubble babble fingerprints. At worst I suppose I can try to work it out from the code; if it's a GNU program I'd be shocked if source weren't available. >> - I'd like to come to some kind of agreement for how to compute and >> represent fingerprints in a way that's a bit more future-friendly >> with respect to hash algorithms than just printing hashes in hex. > I'm kind-of skeptic to displaying the fingerprint in some form > intuitively recognizable and rememberable by humans. Yes, I agree; any fingerprint with enough information to be worth bothering with is probably beyond what most humans will be willing to memorize. > So I think the primary use case is for the user who actually have the > expected fingerprint written down and wants to compare it to what's > displayed on screen. Or - to cite my own use case - has the correct fingerprint in one window and wants to compare it with the fingerprint displayed by an ssh client in another window. > I totally agree it would be nice to standardize the fingerprints. I > think it would make sense to > 1. Use a stronger hash function than md5, and if standardizing > something new at this time I think it's prudent to also choose > something stronger than sha1. Agreed on both counts. > 2. Consider carefully what length of the fingerprint really is > needed, and if we think something shorter than 256 bits is good > enough, truncate the output of sha256 or sha3-256 or whatever > function is chosen. I'm actually tending towards using multiple algorithms, each truncated (or folded) to a short length and then concatenated, with tweaks like the ones HMAC uses to reduce the utility to an attacker of weaknesses. After all, we're hashing relatively small data blobs here; extra computation is not a very big deal. > 3. Use some more compact and/or more readable alphabet than hex. Definitely. > I don't have an informed opinion on whether or not things like > bubble-babble or the "random ascii-art" thing really helps users. In general, neither do I. But I have found that, in my own case, the base-85 encoding is _much_ more usable than the openssh-style hex. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Mon Dec 3 10:15:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF20F21F891F for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:15:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nfJjpMyetN5k for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:15:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47EF121F8920 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:15:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id 5611D14A298; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:15:27 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5DB314A1F4 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:15:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id Zg42NqT69_6h for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP01.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C86914A1AF for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:15:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.202.158] (pool-74-111-100-191.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net [74.111.100.191]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id qB3GdFOi026970 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:39:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Key fingerprints? From: Jeffrey Hutzelman To: Mouse Cc: jhutz@cmu.edu, ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org In-Reply-To: <201212031620.LAA20252@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> References: <201212012244.RAA04952@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> <201212031620.LAA20252@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:39:22 -0500 Message-ID: <1354552762.578.71.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.196 Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org Precedence: list > > 3. Use some more compact and/or more readable alphabet than hex. > > Definitely. > > > I don't have an informed opinion on whether or not things like > > bubble-babble or the "random ascii-art" thing really helps users. > > In general, neither do I. But I have found that, in my own case, the > base-85 encoding is _much_ more usable than the openssh-style hex. I'd be careful about going too far with this. Compactness is nice, but so is the ability to read a fingerprint over the telephone. I think that at least means being case-insensitive, and probably also avoiding some other characters (I'm assuming we are starting with printable ASCII). -- Jeff From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Mon Dec 3 10:29:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2974121F8921 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:29:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.802 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wnZK7JKrb-DV for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:29:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F6C21F8905 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:29:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id A172D14A1DF; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:29:22 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA44E14A1D0 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:29:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id rK9mdoF1MYmu for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:29:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG [216.46.5.7]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6356914A14F for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:29:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA20824; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:29:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:29:18 -0500 (EST) From: Mouse Message-Id: <201212031829.NAA20824@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies. X-Composition-Start-Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:20:31 -0500 (EST) To: ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org Subject: Re: Key fingerprints? In-Reply-To: <1354552762.578.71.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu> References: <201212012244.RAA04952@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> <201212031620.LAA20252@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> <1354552762.578.71.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu> Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org Precedence: list >>> I don't have an informed opinion on whether or not things like >>> bubble-babble or the "random ascii-art" thing really helps users. >> In general, neither do I. But I have found that, in my own case, >> the base-85 encoding is _much_ more usable than the openssh-style >> hex. > I'd be careful about going too far with this. Compactness is nice, > but so is the ability to read a fingerprint over the telephone. Agreed. Different fingerprint presentations for different purposes. My base-85 presentation is fairly specifically optimized for visual comparison; moussh prints both the hex:hex:hex form and the base-85 form because they are optimized for different use cases and the software has no way to tell which is more appropriate at the moment. > I think that at least means being case-insensitive, and probably also > avoiding some other characters (I'm assuming we are starting with > printable ASCII). Maybe have a table of 16384 words and print it 14 bits at a time using them? That's language-specific, of course.... Optimizing for comparing by eye is very different from optimizing for voice (eg) over the telephone, and I would expect it to be difficult to satisfy both at once. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Mon Dec 3 14:19:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CEB21F87E7 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:19:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.109, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ArBJCwqDzWID for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C36921F8616 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id B0F4A14A141; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:19:28 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AA814A19B for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:19:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org Authentication-Results: mail.NetBSD.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jhcloos.com Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id fqgfRDMbFSif for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:19:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eagle.jhcloos.com (eagle.jhcloos.com [IPv6:2001:1938:12d::53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65D2514A0A7 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:19:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eagle.jhcloos.com (Postfix, from userid 10) id 1698F40544; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:18:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhcloos.com; s=eagle; t=1354573163; bh=sCwFED8Uq1hvOvc5fpO+m5g4fvWw8MQAo2H6r8PzJmk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=MHbLE3O+lhJFca8ZzBxN3CXP6aYGDIq/k94JZfe1hWd/l+YloEZPJQ8AY5NicpgHI 0tDl6DRW/AjIb9LU9lktqv+UV9VhaB48zMZ6r2kW/KXjm3hEIiZcYQLNLuvmxW9kat 8b4dp5DIfcjDT9m+VnuVSCCIC7MbvvjV6upJALOU= Received: by carbon.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7D30F6001D; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:11:37 +0000 (UTC) From: James Cloos To: Mouse Cc: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Key fingerprints? In-Reply-To: <201212012244.RAA04952@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> (mouse@rodents-montreal.org's message of "Sat, 1 Dec 2012 17:44:25 -0500 (EST)") References: <201212012244.RAA04952@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAgMAAABinRfyAAAACVBMVEX///8ZGXBQKKnCrDQ3 AAAAJElEQVQImWNgQAAXzwQg4SKASgAlXIEEiwsSIYBEcLaAtMEAADJnB+kKcKioAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC Copyright: Copyright 2012 James Cloos OpenPGP: ED7DAEA6; url=http://jhcloos.com/public_key/0xED7DAEA6.asc OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:11:37 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 16 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Hashcash: 1:30:121203:mouse@rodents-montreal.org::zEKOGyoUrCKXlmtv:00000000000000000000000000000000005NaMA X-Hashcash: 1:30:121203:ietf-ssh@netbsd.org::C53Ndk0BFK4eZ8vr:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000NXnVB Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org Precedence: list >>>>> "M" == Mouse writes: M> I've also seen a two-dimensional "random art" representation, but I M> know nothing about the details behind it. Cf openssh's key.c : key_fingerprint_randomart(). http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/key.c?annotate=1.99 They also implemented bubble babble in key_fingerprint_bubblebabble(). GnuTLS uses that randomart implementation, too. -JimC -- James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Wed Dec 5 10:39:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BE721F842E for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:39:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uJMrzHH8KtHC for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:39:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4E521F8431 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:39:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id DE66C14A234; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:39:03 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACAB414A233 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:38:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id HAt71Mw4aThK for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:38:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from skroderider.denisbider.com (skroderider.denisbider.com [50.18.172.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 043EA14A230 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:38:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Footer: ZGVuaXNiaWRlci5jb20= Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by skroderider.denisbider.com (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128 bits)); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:36:26 +0000 Message-ID: <73E0E7063F9641979A0CFBA557CC2068@Dragonborn> From: "denis bider \(Bitvise\)" To: "Mouse" , References: <201212012244.RAA04952@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> In-Reply-To: <201212012244.RAA04952@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Subject: Re: Key fingerprints? Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:36:04 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org Precedence: list How can we have this whole conversation without mentioning Bubble Babble? http://wiki.yak.net/589/Bubble_Babble_Encoding.txt This was originally designed by SSH, and has been implemented in Bitvise products since our first versions. All our products show Bubble-Babble fingerprints. For example: xubem-kiloc-getad-ponyh-sagyb-sunyp-zirog-ninif-ponak-pisob-luxex This is Bubble-Babble for a 1024-bit DSA key. denis -----Original Message----- From: Mouse Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 16:44 To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: Key fingerprints? I've got a couple of suggestions for ssh implementors. SSH implementations - or at least a few of them - use key fingerprints to summarize keys to users, such as in "no host key saved for this host, here's the host key we got, accept it?" questions. As far as I can tell, how this is done is not standardized. 4251 appears to consider it an implementation choice, with a mild suggestion of SHA-1 hashes converted to hex. It seems to me it is in everyone's interest for fingerprints to be comparable between implementations, which calls for some kind of standardization, even if only de facto. When I was writing moussh I investigated this a ltitle bit and it appeared to me that the only other implementation I had at ready hand (some version of OpenSSH, probably) used MD5 hashes of the public-key data blobs, converted to hex with : used as an octet separator, a la 01:23:45:67:.... Since I wanted hashes fingerprints to be compatible, that's what I implemented. Since then, I've added a more compact - and, I find, easier to compare by eye - representation, the same data content as the hex style but represented in base 85 using most of the printable ASCII characters; moussh now prints both forms in most cases when it has occasion to print key fingerprints. I've also seen a two-dimensional "random art" representation, but I know nothing about the details behind it. On another note, MD5 is showing weaknesses. So far, all I've actually seen reported is collision failures, but I expect second-preimage failures to show up before too much longer. While there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room in key data blobs to take advantage of second preimages, there is some. So, I'd like to use something stronger than MD5, but I also don't want to disturb people by presenting fingeprints that appear to disagree with other implementations' fingerprints for the same keys. This means at least some degree of coordination with how other implementations compute and present fingerprints. So, here's what I'd like to do. To be useful, these need different implementors to work together, which is why I'm writing here: to suggest that we collaborate on these. - I'd like to collect specifications for the various fingerprint formats in use, with an eye to publishing them in some form, preferably with test vectors. I can do the collecting and collating, and, in a minimal form, the publishing (a text file up for FTP or HTTP fetch); if these are considered valuable enough, someone else might want to publish them in other way (such as, perhaps, an Informational RFC). - I'd like to come to some kind of agreement for how to compute and represent fingerprints in a way that's a bit more future-friendly with respect to hash algorithms than just printing hashes in hex. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Wed Dec 12 05:31:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4354921E802E for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:31:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gd0+981TSzya for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:31:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7847421E8037 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id 730EC14A134; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:31:34 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D9114A132 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:31:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id FlXnYc00ok3e for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:31:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DeltaconX4.ct.gov (po.state.ct.us [159.247.0.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AAB714A130 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:31:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from doit-mstwmms1 (unknown [159.247.5.80]) by DeltaconX4.ct.gov with smtp id 2766_6068_c9d9b817_4bc0_4049_b4c4_f355ebb47a35; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:04:21 -0500 Received: from [159.247.77.68] by doit-mstwmms1 with ESMTP (Tumbleweed EMF SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:03:31 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: 89BF447C-F78F-4C06-BC72-B858FE7D13AC Received: from DOIT-EX802.exec.ds.state.ct.us ( [fe80::c467:1a85:cebf:ab3e]) by DOIT-EXHUB01.exec.ds.state.ct.us ( [2002:9ff7:4d44::9ff7:4d44]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:01:48 -0500 From: "TAFUTO, YVONNE" To: "helpdesk@webmaster.org" Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:01:48 -0500 Subject: **Hello:12-12-12. Thread-Topic: **Hello:12-12-12. Thread-Index: AQHN2E+yekIsSEtbeU28wE33TjOlDQ== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 7CD689FB2BC7684411-03-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org Precedence: list Hello, my name Mr. Peter Tung.W from Hong Kong. I want you to be my partner= in a business project of 44.5M USD. Contact me back via my private e-mail addres= s for more details pet59wongg@yahoo.com.hk thank you. Mr. Peter Tung.W. From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Wed Dec 19 09:01:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4647A21F89AD for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:01:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.22 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9OOpCBUX2xpN for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:01:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B94A21F89C0 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:01:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id 1C70014A15D; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:01:11 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4655514A15C for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:01:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id 2g5HzRen-G4Q for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ds-92042.ds-10.com (ds-92042.ds-10.com [95.131.67.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B140E14A159 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from stormpre by ds-92042.ds-10.com with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TlKVT-0001IK-It for ietf-ssh@netbsd.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:20:23 +0000 To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: tinochka_tsishevskaya@mail.ru From: tenhauser@comail.ru Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:20:23 +0000 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ds-92042.ds-10.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - netbsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [500 501] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ds-92042.ds-10.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ds-92042.ds-10.com: authenticated_id: stormpre/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org Precedence: list http://shericapehart.com/wp-content/pic/qeq