Re: [TLS] Rethink TLS 1.3

[[e-mail] (Martin Rex)]

Watson Ladd wrote:
> Henrick Hellström <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I think such discussions would benefit from the basic premise that "secure"
>> is a relative notion. It is completely pointless to ask if a protocol is
>> secure or not secure, unless you first present an exhaustive list of
>> security claims. That is, you can't ask if TLS 1.3 is secure or not, without
>> first describing what security is to be expected from different scenarios.
> 
> It's clear what the security claims of TLS are be: a TLS connection
> between two parties ensures that data sent between them isn't
> intercepted or manipulated, and that they are who they claim to be.
> This is a fairly standard notion, clearly present in research by the
> late 80's, and intuitively sensible.
> 
> Of course, past versions of TLS haven't provided it.

Actually, all versions of TLS, including SSLv3 still provide the
properties you've just described today.

Every problem that has been described so far was an (ab)use of the
orginal SSL&TLS protocols beyond its stated design goals based on
flawed assumptions what TLS should additionally provide or what
the above should be interpreted to cover as well.

-Martin