Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem

Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com> Thu, 18 September 2014 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790341A014E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.654
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.654 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zT_ZHZRi59I0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 159631A01E0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XUTjW-0006D1-H7 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 04:54:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 04:54:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XUTjW-0006D1-H7@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>) id 1XUTj5-0006CA-1k for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 04:53:51 +0000
Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>) id 1XUTj4-0003tD-9v for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 04:53:51 +0000
Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id et14so633431pad.14 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=90BcLhV1zwN37bP0gLutLHabW7gwer98mWComeK+SIc=; b=pi9eF/2xAJU5Z5q3uR2e7DwZrBwAj/SAgiMbz8/TWXeH3WypGcJJc6TZPRJarUzuPv oJyUCX3jUU29X+oYzQREyHoQaIqXDb3b5wkAA5rGXGPctBisjeC9XPRCUJ1KLtPj7/56 6xL9VRalzVpvNxkV609/yq+17o54zdxt+ktvfZm73LTgmazlbL3t/Aa/S9gSJETzdD77 BGGzd6+MxMWruGqmryzPSBHVaZ/He2rv+2Hx4+fuaroX/36q/7wkuMN1xhPAwdtbJigh UIBubHteY4rd1umgdCYeiENzpZ3j/1zbBcNnZHJbm/DxEQmNNqF3iiZyO2OFgyZpG/1v At4A==
X-Received: by 10.70.135.40 with SMTP id pp8mr2379474pdb.116.1411016004030; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Stuarts-MacBook-Pro.local ([66.187.239.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d3sm18426019pbu.18.2014.09.17.21.53.20 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <541A653C.4050903@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:53:16 +1000
From: Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <CAH_y2NF+sP9BmYuD4QbeHpwC_uj67itzaAFCnRVC6f--KDYOgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNopynmwvwWLXvuC0q7skunFXcfRoVHe9s7BKcoCwaBgWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NGXz7e3ejqy_rD=39=yYp3+cS1Dm6c3yFEYZg6tsUp5VQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWAdm1TLP2XCKNU-6RPACLfooQV73R7Gpoemv+9PNULCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NFLjok-NRJtOw1vmSy68sf393iSOgA4K599q0BSBqbNgA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnU-CMtv8KvYU9n+QoPBOBshtQv3RfLy2qw=qVNb2O-qGg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NHrbH5Objwhq9E89QexhQtND4uOdy8q7OEckTCU17WqKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NErRd4rxinSzEH3-uTjdWVkZu9o6sSKSf47LxfPFTRONw@mail.gmail.com> <20140917073241.GA7665@LK-Perkele-VII> <CAFewVt4pxE+9NpzYuzMKGmEdrDXzk50mC99ZbrM6M-uEoKXrHA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NGYcDvPcxDvaTRBP3p4Pnb7gw39WUDY3bNVnOGQjBgciQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt7+UAJYfKAR6DRZi_mqdzSaYw6L-pT1qg=UyOaP1ojhTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NEhAEaPiUgi_vX6Oimw+Y-k3WrnL0gJZKPxQ8KZVuFVfw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnU6C+TzJzdeQZhwXucuPUrPh1yyp1cpRd9jSePMjAnONQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnU6C+TzJzdeQZhwXucuPUrPh1yyp1cpRd9jSePMjAnONQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.41; envelope-from=stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com; helo=mail-pa0-f41.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XUTj4-0003tD-9v 5712072a39533348e11bf4a372938462
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/541A653C.4050903@gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27117
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I have been looking through the archives and I can't seem to find the 
discussion about how this requirement came about, and I am really 
struggling to understand why it is necessary.

I can't really see how it provides any increased security, given that if 
a cypher that meets these requirements is not available the client is 
expected to fallback to HTTP/1.1 and communicate over the supposedly 
less secure cypher anyway.

Stuart

Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 17 September 2014 17:09, Greg Wilkins<gregw@intalio.com>  wrote:
>> Consider clients and servers written in java, so they inherit their ciphers
>> from the JVM. At some stage in the future a GCM is replaced by XYZ and added
>> to the JVM, so it is part of the acceptable TLS ciphers, but the h2 clients
>> and servers implementations have adopted your advice to "By default, assume
>> that a cipher suite is not acceptable".   So everybody is assuming that XYZ
>> is not h2 acceptable.
>
> You can't suddenly pull a cipher suite that people rely on.  We rely
> on GCM.  We require that implementations support it.
>
> Yes, there will be implementations that pick up XYZ, but also don't
> know that it's OK.  That's expected behaviour sadly.  Not all
> implementations will be able to examine the properties of the
> available cipher suites and use properties to determine if they are OK
> to use.
>
>> This is not a theoretical problem.
>
> I disagree, it's a hypothetical problem.
>
>> It is a real problem that I have
>> experienced as FF rolled out their AEAD restriction as rqeuired by 9.2.2
>> before jetty had implemented the same restriction and while AEAD is not
>> available on java-7.  I could implement the AEAD restriction in jetty now to
>> get connectivity with FF, but would lose connectivity with h2 clients
>> running java-7.
>
> I'm not sure that this is quite right.  Unless the Java 7 code is
> singificantly different to the Java 8 code, you should have been able
> to influence suite selection so that a good suite (i.e., an acceptable
> one) was chosen.
>