Skip to content
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

Use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for ipmi server connection algorithm #655

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nick-child-ibm
Copy link

@nick-child-ibm nick-child-ibm commented Sep 23, 2021

Hello,

I was having trouble running tests due to all ipmitool commands returning "invalid authentication algorithm". Apparently, ipmitool defaults to algorithms that use SHA1. It seems that openBMC has recently stopped supporting SHA1 . I was able to fix my issue by using -C 17 (AES with HMAC-SHA256) in my ipmitool commands. I figure it is worth implementing across all ipmitool commands since I cannot think of anyone who would rather use a different cipher-suite. If I am wrong, then I can work on making it a config option. Until then, I propose using HMAC-SHA256 for all ipmi connections. It looks like ipmitool will be changing their behavior in the coming release. In the meantime, I believe this issue will persist as more BMC's are updated to drop support for SHA1.

Please let me know if there is anything I am missing or if I should take any further actions.
Thanks!

When using ipmitool, the default server encryption algorithm for lanplus
connections use SHA1. openBMC has dropped support for SHA1. This will result
in ipmi connection errors due to "invalid authentication algorithm".
Fortunately, a more trusted algorithm, like SHA256, can be used with the
ipmitool option `-C <ciphersuite>`. This commit uses `-C 17` in all ipmitool
commands to ensure that SHA256 is used instead of the deprecated SHA1.

Signed-off-by: Nick Child <[email protected]>
@PraveenPenguin PraveenPenguin force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from 4d0cb14 to b976629 Compare October 6, 2023 07:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant