Timeline for Is it completely safe to publish an ssh public key?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2023 at 18:21 | comment | added | maxadamo | this answer would have been perfect, if only the first word would have been "yes", instead of "no". You say "no" but the explanation, is contradicting in terms, what you are saying. You have explained why the answer is YES, but you start saying NO. | |
| Jun 1, 2022 at 9:41 | history | edited | Bruno Rohée | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo
|
| Feb 9, 2017 at 8:16 | comment | added | Out of Band | @grawity -Ah - you never finish learning. This is why I love stackexchange. Thanks! | |
| Feb 9, 2017 at 6:39 | comment | added | grawity | @RobIII, Pascal: "RSA1" isn't a signature scheme, it means "RSA for SSHv1", where the RSA key was used for decryption – in the now-obsolete SSHv1 protocol the server would encrypt a challenge to your key. (Which is why it only supported RSA, I assume.) All other options are signature keys for SSHv2 protocol, and yes, SSHv2 supports quite a few signature schemes and uses *DH for key exchange. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 18:32 | comment | added | Leliel | @SteveCox true, but salvagable with the addition of one word. "usable". Hardware capable of running Shor's algorithm in subexponential time doesn't yet exist. It's still quite some time away afaik. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 14:23 | comment | added | Steve Cox | "No mathematician currently alive or dead has published a way to factor such a large number in acceptable time." i think user @PeterShor might disagree with you | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 14:17 | history | edited | Out of Band | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 74 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2017 at 14:12 | history | edited | Out of Band | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 74 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2017 at 14:07 | comment | added | Out of Band | Hmmm, you're right. I remembered wrong - according to security.stackexchange.com/questions/76894/…, it seems ssh uses RSA for it's signature capabilities and Diffie Hellman for key exchange - so I'd assume Diffie Hellman is always used as the key exchange algorithm no matter which signature scheme (RSA1, DSA, ECDSA, ED25519) you use. I'll edit the answer to reflect it. | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 13:10 | comment | added | RobIII |
"Note that ssh lets you choose between RSA and Diffie Hellman." I could be mistaken but aren't the options "RSA1", "DSA", "RSA" (for RSA2), "ECDSA" and "ED25519"? Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
| Feb 7, 2017 at 0:51 | history | edited | Out of Band | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2017 at 0:46 | history | edited | Out of Band | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Feb 6, 2017 at 22:09 | comment | added | Out of Band | Agreed. I see the last paragraph is misleading; I meant to say that 2048 and 4096 bit keys are safe for RSA too while 1024 bit keys probably aren't any more, given that even a public/research effort might soon factorize one (so three letter agencies are probably ahead) | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 21:58 | comment | added | user | 1024 bit RSA would probably be a bit too close for comfort. 2048 bit should be fine, 4096 bit adds a fair deal of safety margin (but not as much as would, say, going from AES-128 to AES-256) against currently publicly known attacks. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 19:35 | history | answered | Out of Band | CC BY-SA 3.0 |