Am 11.09.2014 18:12, schrieb Nick: > It is not quite correct to replace "AES" with "AES256" based on > the following reference: > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/security/StandardNames.html
I found that out later as well. It seems that dependent on your installed providers this sometimes works. > Anyway I did few tests with 128, 192, 256 key lengths. All of > them are passed successfully. Here are fragments of my code, > please write me if I am mistaken: that's OK. > Let us assume that aes256-cbc and aes192-cbc are not available but It reports > nothing about aes128-cbc availability: > >> kex: server: >> twofish-cbc,twofish128-cbc,3des-cbc,cast128-cbc,aes256-cbc,*aes128-cbc* >> kex: client: aes128-ctr,*aes128-cbc*,3des-ctr,3des-cbc,blowfish-cbc I missed these entries, so my theory is wrong ;-) > So why it is failed? Have you tried Atsuhiko's suggestion already? What size is the key being involved here? Maybe that's what's too big. Cheers, Lothar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ JSch-users mailing list JSch-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jsch-users
