Re: [TLS] [perpass] Let's remove gmt_unix_time from TLS

Peter Gutmann <> Thu, 12 September 2013 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377C211E8217; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 04:25:12 -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 2Vx8d5CK7Jxs; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 04:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B6121E81E1; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 04:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=uoa; t=1378985096; x=1410521096; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=MxTqlGTIFACzcPHvNyKAjNIxas0/xOu/uhqqMpS59gI=; b=Jr+xvggqAIqMiw6v9YIZUQ2r3NsiI8qqIB3z3EMx+kTBQaduzHyrd0FH OfJTVouYL1+91ZAuvB8DEOYLmOExmZB44EjbalKW3AACJn5t5QJKzn1ro Q+7PoMW93yVvWwdRtkhzXtGc3A3KVkn12fd+GYlHeXNeRb15TiWkihkxO Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,890,1371038400"; d="scan'208";a="211785655"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 12 Sep 2013 23:24:49 +1200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:24:49 +1200
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>, Nick Mathewson <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] [perpass] Let's remove gmt_unix_time from TLS
Thread-Index: Ac6vqrCvzBRaStaeT72/wQJTAi/Ewg==
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:24:48 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [TLS] [perpass] Let's remove gmt_unix_time from TLS
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:25:12 -0000

Stephen Farrell <> writes:

>(And that's a common pattern actually: someone says "if we do X that'll make
>privacy a bit better" and someone else says "but there are so many other ways
>to leak private info, why bother just doing X?")

I've only partially seen it as a privacy issue but more as a security issue,
by telling an attacker that your clock is two weeks out you're letting them
know that they can reuse an expired cert or replay an old CRL.  Even in terms
of privacy it wasn't a specific user-tracking thing but more a question of why
you needed to tell the world what your system clock was set to.  So my code
has always populated the field with random noise, not an actual time.