openssh unix dev - Jan 2015 - Re: Fwd: [Cryptography] Why aren’t we using SSH for everything?

There were a few notes in this thread that may indicate
open areas for development. I forward merely as FYI.

http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2015-January/024231.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Why aren?t we using SSH for everything?
To: calestyo at scientia.net, pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz
Cc: cryptography at metzdowd.com

Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo at scientia.net>
writes:
>On Sun, 2015-01-04 at 18:54 +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>> TLS finally fixed this after a year-long battle to get the change
accepted.  I
>> also suggested it to the SSH folks but they weren't interested, and
after the
>> fight it took to get it into TLS I just didn't have the energy to
go through
>> the same thing for SSH.
>
>$ ssh -Q mac | grep etm
>hmac-sha1-etm at openssh.com
>hmac-sha1-96-etm at openssh.com
>hmac-sha2-256-etm at openssh.com
>hmac-sha2-512-etm at openssh.com
>hmac-md5-etm at openssh.com
>hmac-md5-96-etm at openssh.com
>hmac-ripemd160-etm at openssh.com
>umac-64-etm at openssh.com
>umac-128-etm at openssh.com
I've done the same thing, but the problem is that a bunch of (probably)
incompatible vendor-specific extensions doesn't profit the community as a
whole.  If anyone from OpenSSH would like to get in touch, we can (a) see if
what we're doing is interoperable and (b) document it in an RFC for general
adoption.

Peter.
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography at metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

All our protocol extensions are documented in PROTOCOL.* in our source.
Other open-source implementations have adopted some of our extensions
(e.g. OpenSSH certificates in Go's x/crypto/ssh, chacha20-poly1305 in
tinyssh) and we have adopted extensions from other open-source
implementations (e.g. curve25519-sha256 at libssh.org).

I've kinda given up trying to write things up for the IETF. It's
dominated
by commerical vendors and people with more inclination to argue on mailing
lists than write good software (cf. the sftp process).

-d

On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, grarpamp wrote:
> There were a few notes in this thread that may indicate
> open areas for development. I forward merely as FYI.
> 
> http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2015-January/024231.html
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz>
> Date: Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Why aren?t we using SSH for everything?
> To: calestyo at scientia.net, pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz
> Cc: cryptography at metzdowd.com
> 
> Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo at scientia.net> writes:
> >On Sun, 2015-01-04 at 18:54 +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> >> TLS finally fixed this after a year-long battle to get the change
accepted.  I
> >> also suggested it to the SSH folks but they weren't
interested, and after the
> >> fight it took to get it into TLS I just didn't have the energy
to go through
> >> the same thing for SSH.
> >
> >$ ssh -Q mac | grep etm
> >hmac-sha1-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-sha1-96-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-sha2-256-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-sha2-512-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-md5-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-md5-96-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-ripemd160-etm at openssh.com
> >umac-64-etm at openssh.com
> >umac-128-etm at openssh.com
> 
> I've done the same thing, but the problem is that a bunch of (probably)
> incompatible vendor-specific extensions doesn't profit the community as
a
> whole.  If anyone from OpenSSH would like to get in touch, we can (a) see
if
> what we're doing is interoperable and (b) document it in an RFC for
general
> adoption.
> 
> Peter.
> _______________________________________________
> The cryptography mailing list
> cryptography at metzdowd.com
> http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
> _______________________________________________
> openssh-unix-dev mailing list
> openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org
> https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
>

Damien,

What is the best document to use for documentation on SFTP?  In other words, if
I want to build an SFTP client library based on libssh.a, is there documentation
about the series of messages I need to send over the wire?

Thanks,

ScottN


-----Original Message-----
From: openssh-unix-dev [mailto:openssh-unix-dev-bounces+scott_n=xypro.com at
mindrot.org] On Behalf Of Damien Miller
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 3:58 PM
To: grarpamp
Cc: openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Cryptography] Why aren?t we using SSH for everything?

All our protocol extensions are documented in PROTOCOL.* in our source.
Other open-source implementations have adopted some of our extensions (e.g.
OpenSSH certificates in Go's x/crypto/ssh, chacha20-poly1305 in
tinyssh) and we have adopted extensions from other open-source implementations
(e.g. curve25519-sha256 at libssh.org).

I've kinda given up trying to write things up for the IETF. It's
dominated by commerical vendors and people with more inclination to argue on
mailing lists than write good software (cf. the sftp process).

-d

On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, grarpamp wrote:
> There were a few notes in this thread that may indicate open areas for 
> development. I forward merely as FYI.
> 
> http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2015-January/024231.htm
> l
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz>
> Date: Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Why aren?t we using SSH for everything?
> To: calestyo at scientia.net, pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz
> Cc: cryptography at metzdowd.com
> 
> Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo at scientia.net> writes:
> >On Sun, 2015-01-04 at 18:54 +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> >> TLS finally fixed this after a year-long battle to get the change 
> >> accepted.  I also suggested it to the SSH folks but they
weren't
> >> interested, and after the fight it took to get it into TLS I just 
> >> didn't have the energy to go through the same thing for SSH.
> >
> >$ ssh -Q mac | grep etm
> >hmac-sha1-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-sha1-96-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-sha2-256-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-sha2-512-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-md5-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-md5-96-etm at openssh.com
> >hmac-ripemd160-etm at openssh.com
> >umac-64-etm at openssh.com
> >umac-128-etm at openssh.com
> 
> I've done the same thing, but the problem is that a bunch of 
> (probably) incompatible vendor-specific extensions doesn't profit the 
> community as a whole.  If anyone from OpenSSH would like to get in 
> touch, we can (a) see if what we're doing is interoperable and (b) 
> document it in an RFC for general adoption.
> 
> Peter.
> _______________________________________________
> The cryptography mailing list
> cryptography at metzdowd.com
> http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
> _______________________________________________
> openssh-unix-dev mailing list
> openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org
> https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
> 
_______________________________________________
openssh-unix-dev mailing list
openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org
https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev