Patches to support sha256 based hmac and kexgex #356

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into
from

Projects

None yet
@zamiam69
Contributor

This is based on forks by EtiennePerot and ashb who did most of the work. Changing the remaining sha1 references in transport.py let's me connect to hardened openssh servers again.

@coveralls

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.15%) when pulling 26b11d0 on zamiam69:add_sha2_support into e811e71 on paramiko:master.

@zamiam69 zamiam69 Include sha2 changes in tests
- let _compute_key default default to sha1 if local_mac is not set
  instead of setting local_mac explicitly in the unit test
- add tests for KexGexSHA256
47da193
@coveralls

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.04%) when pulling 47da193 on zamiam69:add_sha2_support into e811e71 on paramiko:master.

@zamiam69 zamiam69 changed the title from Add support for sha256 based hmac and kexgex to Patches to support sha256 based hmac and kexgex Jul 17, 2014
@ashb
ashb commented Aug 9, 2014

👍 better tests that mine too

@Akendo
Akendo commented Sep 23, 2014

What's the state of this MR? I need support to connect to a harden ssh system.

@horazont

Note that the bettercrypto.org people suggest restricting your sshd to these (missing) MACs, so anyone following their guidelines will be unable to use paramiko.

What are the blockers? Maybe the community can jump in.

@zamiam69 zamiam69 Merge upstream branch 'master' into add_sha2_support
Conflicts:
	paramiko/transport.py
	tests/test_transport.py
b3b0f2d
@zamiam69
Contributor

Resolved merge conflicts against upstream master to pacify travis.

@bitprophet
Member

Is there a good dummy's guide to field testing this? (E.g. 'install latest XYZ distro and uncomment a line in sshd_config') I'd like to merge but prefer to hand-test new features when possible; just verifying that it doesn't break older behaviors is only half as good :)

@bitprophet bitprophet added this to the 2.0 milestone Dec 15, 2014
@horazont

https://bettercrypto.org/

The ciphersuites recommended by that group will trigger the issue.

On 15.12.2014 22:01, Jeff Forcier wrote:

Is there a good dummy's guide to field testing this? (E.g. 'install latest XYZ distro and uncomment a line in sshd_config') I'd like to merge but prefer to hand-test new features when possible; just verifying that it doesn't break older behaviors is only half as good :)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#356 (comment)

@gertvdijk

@bitprophet Here's one for Debian/Ubuntu and derivatives.

Requirements: OpenSSH 6.0+ (E.g. in Debian Wheezy 7.x, Ubuntu Trusty 12.04+). I'm here providing both Ciphers and MACs config. Feel free to adjust to only change the MACs directive.

  1. Open /etc/ssh/sshd_config with your editor. E.g.

    sudo nano /etc/ssh/sshd_config
    
  2. Replace/Add the following two directives, then saving the file afterwards.

    For OpenSSH 6.x < 6.6, e.g. Ubuntu 12.04 / Debian Wheezy:

    Ciphers aes128-ctr,aes192-ctr,aes256-ctr
    MACs hmac-sha2-256,hmac-sha2-512
    

    For OpenSSH 6.2+ and 6.5+, e.g. Ubuntu 14.04 there's more you can test/enable:

    Ciphers aes128-ctr,aes192-ctr,aes256-ctr,aes128-gcm@openssh.com,aes256-gcm@openssh.com,chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com
    MACs hmac-sha2-256-etm@openssh.com,hmac-sha2-512-etm@openssh.com,hmac-sha2-256,hmac-sha2-512
    
  3. Restart OpenSSH server:

    sudo service ssh restart
    
  4. On the client, kill all open SSH connections, make sure you also close ones still open by a ControlMaster socket. e.g.

    killall ssh
    
  5. Optionally test/view the key exchange handled in debug level 2 (-vv) by OpenSSH client.

    ssh -vv user@hostname
    

I think it would also be interesting to test compatibility if the order of Ciphers is changed so that AEAD chipers like aes256-gcm@openssh.com are preferred. (Since AEAD ciphers have MAC built-in.)

@bitprophet
Member

@gertvdijk Thanks a bundle! I'll test with that when I poke the 2.0 release line (soon; if not this week, early January post-holidays).

Re: order of ciphers, that sounds reasonable but we may already have open tickets relating to that (I know we have ones for the equivalent operation re: auth key handling, which is currently super naive). Ideally I'd merge this, then look into ordering (default or allowing control of) after.

@dstufft dstufft commented on the diff Jan 20, 2015
paramiko/transport.py
@@ -96,9 +96,13 @@ class Transport (threading.Thread, ClosingContextManager):
_preferred_ciphers = ('aes128-ctr', 'aes256-ctr', 'aes128-cbc', 'blowfish-cbc',
'aes256-cbc', '3des-cbc', 'arcfour128', 'arcfour256')
- _preferred_macs = ('hmac-sha1', 'hmac-md5', 'hmac-sha1-96', 'hmac-md5-96')
+ _preferred_macs = ('hmac-sha1', 'hmac-md5', 'hmac-sha1-96', 'hmac-md5-96',
+ 'hmac-sha2-256')
@dstufft
dstufft Jan 20, 2015

Is this in order of preference? If it is then hmac-sha2-256 should be first.

@sindarina
sindarina Feb 7, 2015

If it works anything like the OpenSSH implementation, then yes, they are in order of preference, so I would suggest putting it first.

@Russell-Jones
Russell-Jones May 9, 2015

For reference, one of the tickets about auth key handling is #387 I added it as I think it might help give some insight into this problem.

@Akendo
Akendo commented Jan 21, 2015

There has been a quite poplar blog entry https://stribika.github.io/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.html
there are some good examples for harden everything in regards to openssh.

A lot of people did this and there are more then ever lusting for this patch.

@mgogoulos

ping, this seems ready to be merged, right?

@cyphase cyphase referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2015
Closed

Support for modern ciphers #509

@cyphase
cyphase commented Apr 9, 2015

I know I can use the fork or modify the code myself for now, but is there an ETA for when this will be merged?

@gertvdijk

Sorry to comment on this again, but it's really taking a very long time to get SHA-2 support in Paramiko. Note that the original pull request (#161) was opened in April 2013. From that point on, it's mostly "here's an improvement" new pull request or complaints about why it isn't merged yet. It's not getting anywhere this way.

I'd suggest to merge this in and improve the situation from there, rather than keeping this open until it's perfect to the letter.

@aneeshusa

+1 please merge this. If there's something holding this up, please let us know so we can help.

@bitprophet
Member

Thought I noted this earlier, but this is definitely at/near the top of Paramiko's priority list, just FYI. Will be digging into said list once another (related) project reaches an important milestone, which should be soon.

@cyphase
cyphase commented May 12, 2015

While this version works with a server that 1.15.2 does not work with (due to no acceptable kex algorithm), it will raise an error when trying to connect to a different server that 1.15.2 does work with. Here's some example code and the traceback:

# bug_in_paramiko_pull356.py

import paramiko

client = paramiko.SSHClient()
client.load_system_host_keys()

hostname = 'works-with-1-15-2.example'
username = 'USER'
password = 'PASS'

client.connect(hostname, 22, username, password, allow_agent=False)

Raises the following exception:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "bug_in_paramiko_pull356.py", line 12, in <module>
    client.connect(hostname, 22, username, password, allow_agent=False)
  File "paramiko/client.py", line 307, in connect
    look_for_keys, gss_auth, gss_kex, gss_deleg_creds, gss_host)
  File "paramiko/client.py", line 519, in _auth
    raise saved_exception
paramiko.ssh_exception.SSHException: Invalid packet blocking

I'd rather not mention the particular server publicly, but I'm certainly willing to mention it privately. Ideally we can figure out the relevant OpenSSH server options that trigger the bug.

@kiddick
kiddick commented Jun 3, 2015

cyphase, same error here!
Is there any workaround for this issue?
So, what about merge?

@igoraj
igoraj commented Jun 3, 2015

+1

@rata
rata commented Jun 10, 2015

Any news when a release including this is planned ?

It's actually really of disturbing because of https://weakdh.org/sysadmin.html

@gertvdijk

@rata

It's actually really of disturbing because of https://weakdh.org/sysadmin.html

Well, diffie-hellman-group14-sha1 in the key exchange is already supported it seems, so no panic regarding that. Please be aware that this PR/issue is about the symmetric cipher/MAC chosen after the key exchange and that the Logjam attack on OpenSSH is an attack on the key exchange. Don't confuse the two (OpenSSH configuration options KexAlgorithms vs MACs).

@rata
rata commented Jun 11, 2015

@gertvdijk sorry, I never actually read the pull req :-D. Just reported #532 and he told that it was addressed in this pull req.

So, I guess it should be re-opened :)

@aaronbieber

We just hardened our internal SSH daemons across the board to align with best practices, which now breaks our entire Paramiko toolchain. Any updates on when this can be merged?

@cyphase
cyphase commented Jun 26, 2015

@kiddick, the workaround I've been using is to manually use this patched version when connecting to a server that requires it. Only works because the particular program I'm maintaining only needs to connect to one SSH server right now, so I literally just replace the paramiko package in site-packages with this version.

@aaronbieber

I confirmed that the patch functions for me as well, so I will be building
my own egg/wheel to host on our internal Python repo. I do hope that this
gets into master soon, though, so that we can all benefit from bug fixes
and increased security.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:37 PM Cyphase notifications@github.com wrote:

@kiddick https://github.com/kiddick, the workaround I've been using is
to manually use this patched version when connecting to a server that
requires it. Only works because the particular program I'm maintaining only
needs to connect to one SSH server right now, so I literally just replace
the paramiko package in site-packages with this version.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#356 (comment).

@baxeno
baxeno commented Jul 15, 2015

Happy birthday #356 you are now 1 year old.

Just ran into this issue after hardening Dropbear in our embedded Linux product.
First thought was that our auto test servers was using an old version of Paramiko, nope 1.15.2 was newest pypi release (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/paramiko/1.15.2).

As progress with 2.0 seems kind of slow, have you considered releasing a 1.16 with this fix?

@thusoy thusoy commented on an outdated diff Aug 21, 2015
paramiko/kex_gex.py
@@ -87,7 +88,7 @@ def parse_next(self, ptype, m):
return self._parse_kexdh_gex_reply(m)
elif ptype == _MSG_KEXDH_GEX_REQUEST_OLD:
return self._parse_kexdh_gex_request_old(m)
- raise SSHException('KexGex asked to handle packet type %d' % ptype)
+ raise SSHException('KexGex %s asked to handle packet type %d' % self.name, ptype)
@thusoy
thusoy Aug 21, 2015

This statement is missing a set of parentheses around the format arguments, it needs to be % (self.name, ptype))

@GuyShaanan

Using this patch, I was indeed able to connect using SHA2-256.
However, I've lost the ability to connect using SHA1 (got errors like @cyphase #356 (comment))

Reading through this comment (#356 (comment)) I changed _preferred_macs order and put hmac-sha2-256 first - and it solved the problem for me.

@bitprophet bitprophet referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2015
Closed

Add support of RFC 6668 #581

@bitprophet
Member

See also #581 which does at least some of the work needed to handle SHA512 (on top of SHA256).

@travisthomas

+1

@pixelchutes

Hoping that this support is able to be merged into the project soon, as it enables connectivity against hardened OpenSSH instances. Select projects relying on paramiko to connect to these hardened installs currently require manual patching or decreasing the security of the ssh server in order to communicate out-of-the-box, which isn't really an option...

@bitprophet
Member

#596 is @GuyShaanan's updated/patched version of this PR, noting it for interlink purposes.

I'm back from vacation now and will be working to merge this & other high profile stuff ASAP. Sincerest regrets on how it's been languishing. Has been a pretty shite year all round :( Thanks for your understanding.

@bitprophet bitprophet modified the milestone: 2.0, 1.16 Oct 27, 2015
@bitprophet
Member

Testing #596 now...

  • Test target: Debian 8 server VM with its stock OpenSSH 6.7

  • Noted that this flavor of sshd still supports older MACs in its default MACs setting (haven't looked to see if this is specific to Debian tho), so Paramiko master still functions against it.

  • Explicitly setting Ciphers and MACs as suggested in #356 (comment) toggles those older MACs off and triggers the expected Incompatible ssh server (no acceptable macs) error.

  • Switching to #596 results in happy MAC agreement (I also added explicit logging there), but I'm running into Invalid packet blocking (which, because of #387 and all its friends, gets logged under DEBUG but manifests at interpreter exit as Private key file is encrypted)

    • @GuyShaanan implied earlier that his ordering tweaks cleared up his own instances of the packet blocking error - but clearly not always the case :(
    • Additionally frustrating, the error isn't consistently reproducible, though there is always an error. Rarely, I get this instead (though it also bubbles up at the end of key exchange, unlike Invalid packet blocking, because it is not an SSHException):
    Unknown exception: signed integer is greater than maximum                               
    Traceback (most recent call last):                                                      
    File "/Users/jforcier/Code/oss/paramiko/paramiko/transport.py", line 1615, in run     
      ptype, m = self.packetizer.read_message()                                           
    File "/Users/jforcier/Code/oss/paramiko/paramiko/packet.py", line 396, in read_message
      buf = self.read_all(packet_size + self.__mac_size_in - len(leftover))               
    File "/Users/jforcier/Code/oss/paramiko/paramiko/packet.py", line 249, in read_all    
      x = self.__socket.recv(n)                                                           
    OverflowError: signed integer is greater than maximum                                   
    

I'm now digging deeper to figure out what's going on; I'm assuming both of the above errors have the same root cause.

Hoping I can get some variant of this merged without having to enter the #387 rabbit hole - I wanted to save that for 2.0 and get this here out for 1.16.

@bitprophet
Member

Poking at the common packet blocking error, it's here: https://github.com/paramiko/paramiko/blob/0b9d772a21a44af38ecceae0fdbae645e386bd9b/paramiko/packet.py#L394-L395 - when I add some debug, I notice the following:

  • The modulo mismatch occurs on the very first packet
  • The packet and modulo sizes vary every time; I don't know this part of the code well enough to know if that's surprising or not. Yet.
  • The OverflowError occurs when those sizes just happen to line up & thus please the modulo test - it gets execution past the modulo check but falls down farther, unsurprisingly given something is rotten somewhere.
@bitprophet
Member
  • When connecting to a control host which only supports non-SHA-2 MACs, things work fine
  • In that scenario, the 'leftover' len is always 12, and the packet size varies but is typically one of 12, 28 or 44.
  • In the problem scenario, the packet size is far, far larger (samples: 2202837257, 4035551545, 191273182, 1589669346) but the 'leftover' len is still always 12.
  • Given that the packet size comes from deconstructing the header, wondering if that's part of what's broken/misconfigured.

Turned on packet dumps; in the control scenario, the post-newkeys packet which is breaking, looks like this (the lines with the packet repr() and discussion of sizes/modulos, are debug lines I added temporarily):

Write packet <service-request>, length 17                               
OUT: 00 00 00 1C 0A 05 00 00 00 0C 73 73 68 2D 75 73    ..........ssh-us
OUT: 65 72 61 75 74 68 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00    erauth..........
IN: 00 00 00 1C 0A 06 00 00 00 0C 73 73 68 2D 75 73    ..........ssh-us 
'\x00\x00\x00\x1c\n\x06\x00\x00\x00\x0cssh-us'                          
(packet_size 28 - leftover len 12) % block_size 16 was 0                
IN: 65 72 61 75 74 68 00 57 06 B6 17 34 04 4D 62 91    erauth.W...4.Mb. 
Got payload (28 bytes, 10 padding)                                                                 

In the broken scenario, we instead get this:

Write packet <service-request>, length 17                               
OUT: 00 00 00 1C 0A 05 00 00 00 0C 73 73 68 2D 75 73    ..........ssh-us
OUT: 65 72 61 75 74 68 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00    erauth..........
IN: 75 67 F8 9E EA 0B FC 99 6A A0 5F C2 1D A3 78 35    ug......j._...x5 
'ug\xf8\x9e\xea\x0b\xfc\x99j\xa0_\xc2\x1d\xa3x5'                        
(packet_size 1969748126 - leftover len 12) % block_size 16 was 2        

The actual packet under discussion is the IN part, the OUT is the same in either case anyways. As expected, the data in the failure scenario looks like total garbage, it's clearly not actually a packet header. Question is why.

@bitprophet
Member

Actually thinking the issue may be in the key-exchange parts of the PR(s). I focused on transport.py yesterday because the error message was in the handling of packets and it seemed like a good place to start.

But...

  • the changes to transport.py are pretty basic overall;
  • high-level troubleshooting techniques like looking for suspicious diff chunks or examining what the diffs might have overlooked and neglected to change, aren't leading anywhere;
  • the packets only get garbled after key renegotiation occurs (i.e. after the initial handshaking & agreement on keys wraps up and MSG_NEWKEYS is received/logged, as Switch to new keys...).
  • many of the changes in the PR are in the kex/gex side of things.

So my next steps are to dig into the protocol details further & familiarize myself with the key exchange bits that got updated.

Side note, I've tested the changes on my localhost as well (OS X Yosemite & its stock OpenSSH 6.2p2) with so far identical results.

@bitprophet
Member
  • Server's also spitting the expected errors about packet length/garbage, clearly the two ends aren't on speaking terms post-newkeys.
    • Meaning either paramiko has the right idea about which cipher or hmac to use but is bungling the implementation, or paramiko isn't using the ciper or hmac that it agreed to use.
  • In my test cases, aes128-ctr is the agreed-upon cipher and hmac-sha2-256 (vanilla, not etm, as we don't support that yet) is the HMAC.
  • The kex algorithm is diffie-hellman-group14-sha1 in both scenarios, though that shouldn't be relevant anyways - if the issue was about encrypting the key exchange we'd see failures at that step and not after.
    • Thus some of the kex logic I skipped earlier, isn't the culprit, as it implements the sha256 variant of kex algorithms - which aren't being used at all in my scenarios.
  • And the rest of the kex logic that was modified involves stripping out the DH group-oriented algorithms when the local implementation lacks a modulus pack, which also isn't the case here.
  • This leaves me with "the code all looks fine, and it apparently works for other people, so what else could be breaking in my situation?"
    • To which the first answer is "the only other code that changes here is the actual hash algorithm - could hashlib.sha256 be buggy in my local environment?" so I'm gonna head back up a few levels and try Python 2.7 (I'm on 2.6 right now) and Linux (my local OS is Yosemite).
    • After that, I'll continue mutating the allowed-MACs lists on my target sshd, as that's another easily controllable factor which might be differing for other users.
@bitprophet
Member

Python versions sanity check didn't turn anything up (honestly good because it'd be pretty alarming if the problem was "sha256 is broken on Yosemite and/or Python 2.6"):

  • No dice on Yosemite's Python 2.7.10, identical behavior in the failure scenario
  • Debian 8 has Python 2.7.9 (no 2.6 is available by default), also identical failure/success behavior

Back on my regular test setup, checking the other MACs Paramiko supports by forcing the sshd to only accept one of them at a time:

  • hmac-sha2-256: is what we've been using as the failure case, obviously it's still busted
  • hmac-sha1: this is the one I've been using to force disuse of sha-2 on Paramiko's end; it works fine
  • hmac-sha1-96: also fine
  • hmac-md5: breaks in identical fashion to hmac-sha2-256, which is interesting; need to test it with master to see if it was broken prior to this PR, because I wouldn't have expected this to break things...
    • unless the handful of changes that switched a hardcoded sha1 to "the function specified in Transport._cipher_info for the algorithm we're using", are overly aggressive somehow?
  • hmac-md5-96: ditto, breaks
@bitprophet
Member

Confirmed, hmac-md5 works on master but not on my branch based off of #596 (nor with vanilla #596 as a sanity check, tho all my changes have been logging or code-formatting related only). So that's a regression, hopefully a useful one. Poking more.

@bitprophet
Member

Sure enough, if I simply modify Transport._compute_key to always use sha1 again instead of the references to md5 or sha256 from _mac_info, suddenly all 3 HMAC schemes work correctly, including hmac-sha2-256.

This implies that switching the hash algorithm used in that particular step, is the wrong thing to do. What I don't get is why did everybody testing have it "work" for them?

Only thing that makes sense off the top of my head is if people were testing on servers which were triggering use of SHA-2 key exchange (or perhaps cipher) but not SHA-2 HMAC (presuming that the swap-out of sha1 for e.g. sha256 in KexGex is correct/functional, which I will try to verify shortly). That would mask the bug I appear to have identified.

The sanity-check voice in my head says "couldn't this 'fix' still be incorrect, functional but insecure?" made me doublecheck where else we are still using the sha256 class, by virtue of it being added to Transport._mac_info - and that still looks good (the Packetizer is performing actual cipher and MAC logic on the packets themselves, and it's still being told to use sha256 when we've agreed upon hmac-2-sha256).

@bitprophet
Member

Sanity-tested KexAlgorithms setting diffie-hellman-group-exhange-sha1 (since there's no SHA-2 variant of the default, diffie-hellman-group14-sha1), then tested diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256.

As I half-expected, that broke, until I set Transport._compute_key back to using sha256. Clearly, we need to be setting this based on the agreed-upon kex, which in retrospect makes a lot of sense given how the protocol works & when Transport._compute_key is called.

@bitprophet
Member

FTR using self.kex_engine.hash_algo seems like the cleanest way to get at the hash algo set by the Kex* classes. (I also had to explicitly add it to some that lacked, since there's not much actual inheritance in that group of classes. Something to address later, perhaps.)

I need to see how easy it is to add tests for some of these kex/hmac combinations so there's at least some regression protection for this kind of silly mistake.

@bitprophet bitprophet added a commit that closed this pull request Nov 2, 2015
@bitprophet bitprophet Changelog closes #356, closes #596.
Will expand to include SHA512 stuff if I merge that prior to release.
66ff4de
@bitprophet bitprophet closed this in 66ff4de Nov 2, 2015
@bitprophet
Member

Grump, the way tests are currently broken down that'll be a lot of effort so I'm gonna punt for now :( (The tests, overall, need a ton of cleaning up anyways...) At least I identified a test failure my change triggered.


So. I'm now actually happy with my copy of this PR. It has been merged to master just recently. It passes all tests including those ran by Travis. It works for me with varying combinations of SHA1 vs SHA2 based kex and/or MAC settings on a target sshd.

I'd like to release it publicly as 1.16, but before I do so, I'd like at least 1-2 of the folks following this ticket to test it on their end, preferably also with various kex and/or MAC settings in play, please!

Going to cc some of the more recently active players in case their notifications for the ticket itself are disabled, please don't be offended if you're not in this list :) /cc @GuyShaanan @aaronbieber @cyphase @zamiam69

In the meantime I may poke at the 512-bit variants of this functionality I've seen lying around somewhere; would be nice to get those bundled up in 1.16 as well. EDIT: said changes were like 2 lines' worth, so they're in, we now also support hmac-sha2-512.

@cyphase
cyphase commented Nov 2, 2015

I came just to check up on your progress - I've been following for the last few days - and was pleased to see that you solved this; thanks for pinging me though :). The particular SSH server I was having an issue with was replaced three weeks ago (which caused the program in question to raise the paramiko.ssh_exception.SSHException: Invalid packet blocking and OverflowError: signed integer is greater than maximum errors until I went back to vanilla 1.15.2), but I'm glad that this has been resolved. Thanks for your hard work @bitprophet :D.

@bitprophet
Member

Thanks for checking in, @cyphase :)

Realistically, I'm going to poke at the rest of the 1.16 milestone in the very near term, and that window of time is what I'll leave open for folks to yea/nay my copy of this functionality.

Worst case, if there are remaining bugs after I cut a release, they'll come to light relatively soon & get fixed in bugfix releases. Better than me waiting much longer, given how long this topic has moldered.

@GuyShaanan

Hi @bitprophet
Thank you so much for pinging me.

I just ran my tests again, now using v1.16, and it passed with success on all of my servers!
Thanks again!

@pixelchutes

@bitprophet So far so good for me.

Tested against MySQL Workbench (v6.3.5) and current master: 935711b

Related https://bugs.mysql.com/74658

@bitprophet
Member

Thanks @GuyShaanan and @pixelchutes!

I released 1.16 today, so it's in the wild

@rata
rata commented Nov 6, 2015

@bitprophet using it via Fabric, on a host that has:

KexAlgorithms curve25519-sha256@libssh.org

Can't connect with:

Fatal error: Incompatible ssh peer (no acceptable kex algorithm)

If I remove the KexAlgorithms directive from the host, Fabric/paramiko can connect just fine. And, of course, I can always ssh from my workstation when using the KexAlgorithms directive.

@pixelchutes

@bitprophet Unfortunately, I can confirm same behavior as @rata when strictly using:

KexAlgorithms curve25519-sha256@libssh.org
@bitprophet
Member

@rata @pixelchutes That's correct, this PR doesn't include curve25519-sha256 (I listed the specifics that were added in the changelog) but I'd merge one that did (or revisit one that I closed erroneously, but I don't think any did?)

@bitprophet
Member

See also #325 (which is an issue, not a PR, but.)

@rata
rata commented Nov 9, 2015

@bitprophet oh, sorry. I thought it will be supported. Security wise, is kind of nice or a must to have it. Any plans?

@bitprophet
Member

@rata I don't have the personal need (or the time) to implement it myself but I certainly recognize the utility of adding it, which is why I said I'd accept a PR :) For whichever reason, this original PR didn't include curve22519.

@rata
rata commented Nov 19, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment