nhyatt/putty-source
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.tartarus.org/simon/putty.git synced 2025-01-09 01:18:00 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Docs: MD5 is forced for SSH-1 key fingerprints.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Jacob Nevins 2022-10-21 11:53:27 +01:00
parent d42983088a
commit 5d5a6a8fd3
2 changed files with 8 additions and 7 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

9
doc/pageant.but
View File

@ -86,10 +86,11 @@ fingerprint shown by remote utilities such as \i\c{ssh-keygen} when
applied to your \c{authorized_keys} file.
\lcont{
By default this is shown in the \q{SHA256} format. You can change to the
older \q{MD5} format (which looks like \c{aa:bb:cc:...}) with the
\q{Fingerprint type} drop-down, but bear in mind that this format is
less secure and should be avoided for comparison purposes where possible.
For SSH-2 keys, by default this is shown in the \q{SHA256} format. You
can change to the older \q{MD5} format (which looks like \c{aa:bb:cc:...})
with the \q{Fingerprint type} drop-down, but bear in mind that this
format is less secure and should be avoided for comparison purposes
where possible.
If some of the keys loaded into Pageant have certificates attached,
then Pageant will default to showing the fingerprint of the underlying

6
doc/pubkey.but
View File

@ -240,9 +240,9 @@ a particular fingerprint. So some utilities, such as the Pageant key
list box (see \k{pageant-mainwin-keylist}) and the Unix \c{ssh-add}
utility, will list key fingerprints rather than the whole public key.
By default, PuTTYgen will display fingerprints in the \q{SHA256}
format. If you need to see the fingerprint in the older \q{MD5} format
(which looks like \c{aa:bb:cc:...}), you can choose
By default, PuTTYgen will display SSH-2 key fingerprints in the
\q{SHA256} format. If you need to see the fingerprint in the older
\q{MD5} format (which looks like \c{aa:bb:cc:...}), you can choose
\q{Show fingerprint as MD5} from the \q{Key} menu, but bear in mind
that this is less cryptographically secure; it may be feasible for
an attacker to create a key with the same fingerprint as yours.