-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
openssh deprecates ssh-rsa key type: maybe update vagrant insecure key #11783
Comments
Hey there @dustymabe - thanks for the heads up, that makes sense. |
Thanks!
It's not a warning that can be ignored. It's an error. The I do the box builds for Fedora and publish them to https://app.vagrantup.com/fedora. Other distros are going to hit this soon, Fedora just happens to be one of the earliest to pick things up. |
Ohhh, I see! Well that makes sense. Thanks for letting us know then @dustymabe |
This may not be for everyone, but my team has found that incorporating |
Fedora 33 is now in Beta. (Edit: Upstream OpenSSH is still planning on deprecating the RSA-SHA1 key type). |
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that: It is now possible to perform chosen-prefix attacks against the SHA-1 algorithm for less than USD$50K. For this reason, we will be disabling the "ssh-rsa" public key signature algorithm by default in a near-future release. See hashicorp/vagrant#11783 (comment)
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that: It is now possible to perform chosen-prefix attacks against the SHA-1 algorithm for less than USD$50K. For this reason, we will be disabling the "ssh-rsa" public key signature algorithm by default in a near-future release. See hashicorp/vagrant#11783 (comment)
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that: It is now possible to perform chosen-prefix attacks against the SHA-1 algorithm for less than USD$50K. For this reason, we will be disabling the "ssh-rsa" public key signature algorithm by default in a near-future release. See hashicorp/vagrant#11783 (comment)
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that: It is now possible to perform chosen-prefix attacks against the SHA-1 algorithm for less than USD$50K. For this reason, we will be disabling the "ssh-rsa" public key signature algorithm by default in a near-future release. See hashicorp/vagrant#11783 (comment)
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that: It is now possible to perform chosen-prefix attacks against the SHA-1 algorithm for less than USD$50K. For this reason, we will be disabling the "ssh-rsa" public key signature algorithm by default in a near-future release. See hashicorp/vagrant#11783 (comment)
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that: It is now possible to perform chosen-prefix attacks against the SHA-1 algorithm for less than USD$50K. For this reason, we will be disabling the "ssh-rsa" public key signature algorithm by default in a near-future release. See hashicorp/vagrant#11783 (comment)
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that: It is now possible to perform chosen-prefix attacks against the SHA-1 algorithm for less than USD$50K. For this reason, we will be disabling the "ssh-rsa" public key signature algorithm by default in a near-future release. See hashicorp/vagrant#11783 (comment)
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that: It is now possible to perform chosen-prefix attacks against the SHA-1 algorithm for less than USD$50K. For this reason, we will be disabling the "ssh-rsa" public key signature algorithm by default in a near-future release. See hashicorp/vagrant#11783 (comment)
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that: It is now possible to perform chosen-prefix attacks against the SHA-1 algorithm for less than USD$50K. For this reason, we will be disabling the "ssh-rsa" public key signature algorithm by default in a near-future release. See hashicorp/vagrant#11783 (comment)
@jshimkus-rh I am now implementing |
> On Nov 1, 2020, at 23:08, Wong Hoi Sing Edison ***@***.***> wrote:
>
>
> This may not be for everyone, but my team has found that incorporating update-crypto-policies --set LEGACY
> in Fedora 33 vagrant box generation does successfully set the policies such that vagrant can communicate with the box during vagrant up.
>
> @jshimkus-rh I am now implementing update-crypto-policies --set LEGACY for lavabit/robox#173, but always get reinitialized to DEFAULT during first vagrant up. May you share some hints about your successful story?
>
I took at look at your change and one difference that jumps out is that we added a crypto-policies.sh (see attached) and placed it immediately after swap.sh in the fedora33 .json file:
"provisioners": [
{
...
"scripts": [
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}scripts/swap.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}scripts/crypto-policies.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}scripts/fix-slow-dns.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}scripts/build-tools-30.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}scripts/install-supporting-packages.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}../_common/motd.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}../_common/sshd.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}../_common/virtualbox.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}../_common/vmware.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}../_common/parallels.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}../_common/vagrant.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}scripts/cleanup.sh",
"{{user `bento_file_dir`}}../_common/minimize.sh"
],
...
}
],
Other than that it doesn't seem fundamentally different.
|
For those trying to figure out how to work around this, check out what I did in the official fedora vagrant box for now: https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts/pull-request/669#request_diff |
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that: It is now possible to perform chosen-prefix attacks against the SHA-1 algorithm for less than USD$50K. For this reason, we will be disabling the "ssh-rsa" public key signature algorithm by default in a near-future release. See hashicorp/vagrant#11783 (comment)
dunno whether it should have done - probably not - but this workaround didn't make it into the fedora 33 cloudbase amis (eg ami-0edca001b0a05f840) |
The Fedora cloud images uploaded to AWS aren't specific to vagrant so they weren't updated to workaround this problem. |
Hi everyone, I was confused on why this was still an issue with the net-ssh backports in place to support the rsa-sha2-256 (and 512 variant) signatures. There is no issue with RSA keys so long as they are SSH2 keys, not SSH1. From the OpenSSH release notes (https://www.openssh.com/txt/release-8.5):
In fact, we can see this is actually the case by removing
When a provision script is attempted to be run by Vagrant, we see that there's an error connecting. However, if we run:
We can connect as expected. This means that as far as OpenSSH is concerned, the RSA keys we are attempting to use are in fact valid. The After digging through a bunch of code in the net-ssh library, the OpenSSH source, and some of the OpenSSL source I happened upon this commit: openssh/openssh-portable@d1e578a wherein the client has been updated to send the signature algorithm in the Cheers! |
I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further. |
Vagrant version
vagrant-2.2.9
Host operating system
Fedora 31
Guest operating system
Fedora Rawhide (will become Fedora 33) with
openssh-8.3p1-3.fc33.x86_64
andcrypto-policies-20200702-1.gitc40cede.fc33.noarch
.Vagrantfile
Any vagrantfile
Expected behavior
vagrant up
works.vagrant ssh
works.Actual behavior
Gets stuck at
Waiting for SSH to become available...
. Inside the box in the logs we see:Description
Upstream SSH has been claiming for a few releases now that:
Distributions are picking up on this and deprecating
ssh-rsa
. Fedora did this recently and it will land in the next major Fedora release. We should consider updating the pubkey to something that uses a newer algorithm.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: