I don't think we should wait for a RFC in order to use stronger crypto. We already prefer Curve25519 for key exchange without waiting for it. So why wait for a RFC in this case? On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:09 AM, Damien Miller <djm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2018, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > >> On 2018-05-25, Yegor Ievlev <koops1997@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > The defaults for HostKeyAlgorithms option are: [...] >> > Why does OpenSSH prefer older and less secure >> > (https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/) ECDSA with NIST curves over Ed25519? >> >> I asked Markus and Damien about this in the past but honestly don't >> remember the answer. Some of the potential reasons (lack of >> standardization, no DNS fingerprint, ...) seem to no longer apply. >> I've been wanting to hassle Markus and Damien about this again, >> once I run into them in person, but that opportunity hasn't presented >> itself yet. > > Yeah, there's no RFC for ed25519 keys yet. There's an I-D in progress at > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-01.html > > Christian is right about our reasoning for the other choices. > > -d > _______________________________________________ > openssh-unix-dev mailing list > openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
