Return-Path: <jsalowey@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: syslog@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: syslog@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
 with ESMTP id 042BE3A6B42 for <syslog@core3.amsl.com>;
 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:07:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IFRmfeyYEQVw for
 <syslog@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by
 core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825353A6AD8 for <syslog@ietf.org>;
 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:07:42 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com;
 dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAJZomUurR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACaaXOiG5hkhHsEgxc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,624,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="164798562"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com
 with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2010 06:07:48 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com
 [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id
 o2C67mhq009009; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:07:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by
 xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:07:48 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:07:44 -0800
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE509CE7E87@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <000201cac08b$882391a0$0601a8c0@allison>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [Syslog] DTLS renegotiation
Thread-Index: AcrAlBzKxNxQWz/KSTGI1Y3tdqnNcABFd6jA
References: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE509C5B96D@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
 <000201cac08b$882391a0$0601a8c0@allison>
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>, <syslog@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2010 06:07:48.0454 (UTC)
 FILETIME=[572B5860:01CAC1AA]
Subject: Re: [Syslog] DTLS renegotiation
X-BeenThere: syslog@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Issues in Network Event Logging <syslog.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog>,
 <mailto:syslog-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog>
List-Post: <mailto:syslog@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:syslog-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog>,
 <mailto:syslog-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:07:55 -0000

Hi Tom,

The text I suggested is a bit vague.  I like your replacement text.

Joe

> > 8.1 DTLS Renegotiation
> >
> > TLS and DTLS renegotiation may be vulnerable to attacks described in
RFC
> > 5746.  Although RFC 5746 provides a fix for some of the issues,
> > renegotiation can still cause problems for applications since
connection
> > security parameters can change without the application knowing it.
> > There for it is RECOMMENDED that renegotiation be disabled for
syslog
> > over DTLS.   If, for some reason, renegotiation is allowed then the
> > specification in RFC 5746 MUST be followed and the implementation
MUST
> > make sure that the connection security parameters do not change
during
> > renegotiation.
>=20
> I think that the last sentence goes too far and should be more like
>=20
> " If renegotiation is allowed then the
> > specification in RFC 5746 MUST be followed and the implementation
MUST
> > make sure that the connection still has adequate security and that
any
> identities extracted from client and serverthe certificates do not
change
> during
> > renegotiation.
>=20
> Well, a bit clumsy, but I would like to be specific on those two
issues.
> They
> are nothing to do with the problem that RFC5746 addresses but the work
> leading
> up to RFC5746 did show that these are related issues with
renegotiation.
>=20
> Tom Petch
>=20
>=20
> > _______________________________________________
> > Syslog mailing list
> > Syslog@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

