The following weak client-to-server encryption algorithms are supported by the remote service:
i fixed that *years* ago but now switched from my sshd.service to socket-activation and "ExecStart=-/usr/sbin/sshd -i $OPTIONS $CRYPTO_POLICY" is nice BUT you have no business to override explicit settings by admins knowing what they are doing longer than crypto policy exists at all
this is nonsense - explicit set options in ssd_config has to be optout enough
# Configuration file for the sshd service.
# The server keys are automatically generated if they are missing.
# To change the automatic creation, adjust sshd.service options for
# example using systemctl enable email@example.com to allow creation
# of DSA key or systemctl mask firstname.lastname@example.org to disable RSA key
# System-wide crypto policy:
# To opt-out, uncomment the following line
First of all, the claim that aes256-cbc is week is at least arguable. It is indeed not recommended cipher but it can be useful as a fallback to talk with older clients.
The sysconfig file should be loaded also for the socket activated service so you should be able to opt out the same way for your new socket activated service.
Unfortunately, there is no better for sshd to load some policy file at this moment or to honor the crypto algorithms written in the configuration file, but if you have a better idea how to solve this problem, I would be glad to hear it.
If you believe the cbc ciphers should not be in the default policy, feel free to open an issue on upstream:
sshd should simply weight explicit config values over global policies
If it would be that simple to achieve, it would be done. But unfortunately it is not possible without extensively patching sshd, preprocessing configuration file, modifying its location or something even worse affecting much more users.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 28 is nearing its end of life.
On 2019-May-28 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for
Fedora 28. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases
that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as
EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '28'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version.
Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not
able to fix it before Fedora 28 is end of life. If you would still like
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version
of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 28 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-05-28. Fedora 28 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.
If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.