Re: [TLS] An SCSV to stop TLS fallback. (Martin Rex) Sat, 07 December 2013 06:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902621AE264 for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 22:43:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s9WLHRzKbnSd for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 22:43:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CD81AE243 for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 22:43:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (26) with ESMTP id rB76gsgE004765 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 7 Dec 2013 07:42:54 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Watson Ladd <>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 07:42:54 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL125 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <>
From: (Martin Rex)
X-SAP: out
Subject: Re: [TLS] An SCSV to stop TLS fallback.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 06:43:02 -0000

Watson Ladd wrote:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> To clarify.
> >
> > Btw. AES128-CBC-SHA1 is more secure than AES128-GCM/-CCM, so the only
> > thing the client might be "loosing" is a little performance, and
> > that AEAD can not currently be negotiated and used unless
> > ClientHello.client_version is set to { 0x03, 0x03 } is a silly defect
> > of the specification(s) that could be easily fixed.
> I am assuming you are discussing the modes as specified and
> implemented in TLS? In that case you are dead wrong.
> Lucky 13, BEAST, and even if we drop all that no protocol depending
> both on SHA1 and AES can be stronger than one depending
> on AES alone.

Lucky 13 and BEAST are completely irrelevant for the majority
of usage scenarios, and there's even a simple 1/(n-1) record splitting
workaround for BEAST for those with paranoia.

I don't know what you mean by "AES alone", but if you are refering
to "AES-GCM", that isn't AES alone, but AES in combination with GHASH,
and HMAC-SHA1 beats the security of GHASH by a huge safety margin.