Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04

"Yngve N. Pettersen" <> Fri, 29 March 2013 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B310D21F8D26; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cwtgdTjw4zkR; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E826921F8C7D; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:62399 helo=killashandra.invalid.invalid) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1ULgs7-0007O9-EE; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:30:03 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To:,, "Hilarie Orman" <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:29:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Yngve N. Pettersen" <>
Message-ID: <op.wup8n3pw3dfyax@killashandra.invalid.invalid>
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.14 (Win32)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:01:52 -0700
Subject: Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:30:15 -0000

Hello Hilarie,

Thanks for the review.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:34:55 +0100, Hilarie Orman <> wrote:

> Security review of draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04
> Do not be alarmed.  I have reviewed this document as part of the
> security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
> being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily
> for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and
> WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
> The final paragraph in section 2.2 discusses using an unauthenticated
> session for the purpose of obtaining certificates in order to
> authenticate the session.  Sending usernames and passwords over the
> connection while unauthenticated is regarded as "inappropriate".  This
> seems to be a serious problem, deserving of at least a "MUST NOT".

I changed that to:

  "In this case, the client could continue with the handshake, but it MUST  
NOT disclose a username and password until it has fully validated the  
server certificate."

It will be included in the -06 version. I'll probably wait until next week  
with that one, since I released -05 earlier today.

> In section 2.2, "A server that receive a client hello" should be
> "A server that receives a client hello".  Later,

This has already been fixed in the -05 version.

> "require trust in the server, and the server certificate has not been"
> reads better without the comma.

I am not sure about this one. The original version was without the comma,  
but I asked a former colleague (a document writer/reviewer) to review that  
update, and she suggested the comma.

Yngve N. Pettersen

Using Opera's mail client: