| Summary: | CVE-2020-14145 - will it get fixed? | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Portable OpenSSH | Reporter: | Manfred Kaiser (bmlv.gv.at) <manfred.kaiser> |
| Component: | ssh | Assignee: | Assigned to nobody <unassigned-bugs> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | security | CC: | djm |
| Priority: | P5 | ||
| Version: | 8.6p1 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| URL: | https://docs.ssh-mitm.at/CVE-2020-14145.html | ||
|
Description
Manfred Kaiser (bmlv.gv.at)
2021-05-26 22:20:05 AEST
First, we consider the automatic ordering of host key algorithms an important feature for security. It provides continuity of trust by clients across changes in default algorithm preference in ssh and servers offering hostkeys of different types. Disabling this feature wholesale would IMO result in a net *loss* of security as it would force more connections that already have learned a hostkey to accept a new one of a different algorithm, thereby needlessly exposing them to MITM risk. That being said, commit b3855ff (shipped in openssh-8.4) adjusted the ordering to always use the default if the client has learned a hostkey matching the best-preference algorithm. openssh-8.5 enabled UpdateHostkeys by default (with some restrictions) so most users will automatically learn a best-preference hostkey if one is available at the server. Between these, most users should end up using the default algorithm list. Speaking for myself - I plan to relax the restrictions around UpdateHostkeys' activation, but do not plan to take other action around this "vulnerability". In particular, I do not intend to offer an option to force the use of the default cipher list. IMO too many users would flip it thinking it solved a security problem when the situation is actually far more subtle and the reverse is likely the case. Thanks for the answer. Now I understand the problem better. Mitigation might be possible, but with the risk of a changing fingerprint due to different preferred algorithms. For most users, this might be more error prone and it's more likely that the users accepts a wrong fingerprint. So the only real mitigation is setting up a CA and using certificates, or is this a wrong assumption? The documentation is updated with your answer and the recommendation how to mitigate this vulnerability was changed. Sorry, that I have escalated this vulnerability. closing bugs resolved before openssh-8.9 |