Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3
Hugo Krawczyk <hugo@ee.technion.ac.il> Thu, 22 September 2016 23:41 UTC
Return-Path: <hugokraw@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D11412C0AD for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fciZWYw12AWp for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22d.google.com (mail-yb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2558E12C092 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id d69so60164829ybf.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=wT+wag2dFtVlTvc1iI93EpQc0dJtWF+Fxh5vp4jkhFo=; b=Qhtn4vSS8zONHDbE2v+FWd+XO5qFIrJ3xAAKVasvZFyjPiyIQ+Nz8KsVQRzEsL1c+P bEIr6p6retdnlgkOFGGriCw59rHqWbGOH+H6Uklkk0lnWicy1qsucf8ZKIVkt9IVW9f1 LGfjDHJMXuwve3Fe0XWZQXefrKvgN4EhJ0G67uuFiSVr7B9xcCc0AlymDTm2XnbjfTg/ FdxcixfUPZQ0EtxUqnaDRAuzCyMFMTPOU6YdsuG5ZBo+uhAQlBVC4wSyyyBy0gj60jk9 j55VRHq2Vwn1sV2a8XnWUEe0Hw8JSFt6sETAc5UaOGcHoKwy2QHqloqZpsURa6fC3pQn AP+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wT+wag2dFtVlTvc1iI93EpQc0dJtWF+Fxh5vp4jkhFo=; b=UgW2PvcKum8oSx7uwn/Enkko9Qs1Cihq7P68b9su7xMizvSFmZKsWxxoJ7G8AI4aaJ 6pc+YUTv6fuMiVSwjC7v2MTzkJNSC8zetUrOfdUvI6s2Vj3P/uWMfhzoZ/G/JF6yXXVN lFuGl/NGq6rFzoJeCDAIiYsa7GCppT4RkZpxq4qMj0klPh3VpKBhf+t1bjl1GTzSGIbu f6W2kC1DFcpEl6BpdLKGg7UwaNU4N0k1blsI+ZQeclyRXqwyMGzDovjQHgBwuGvDxrd8 udwP0Bvkb+N1ESrrocWNcMXvjVQwzOjZOBr3r60lU2PHDQJwIVTWyVEPHXhlNHOezjgQ GLVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNTUHvhW2888acU1NTMReL3PomPS19/wlAQssn8dgkD8u/ZGL5K44Kcjy3tPTbmSSx9SzeVGzoVNh/tVQ==
X-Received: by 10.37.171.201 with SMTP id v67mr3618792ybi.177.1474587691345; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: hugokraw@gmail.com
Received: by 10.37.174.8 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR11MB1419B782D2BEF0E0A35E420DF4C90@DM5PR11MB1419.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM5PR11MB1419B782D2BEF0E0A35E420DF4C90@DM5PR11MB1419.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Hugo Krawczyk <hugo@ee.technion.ac.il>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:41:00 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8RHF4LezueQifXJNEOoLe7zIF2g
Message-ID: <CADi0yUPZzLrPize4eKpASdM=2nm1h1T2UXs7_sdk2eDv=ku_2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: BITS Security <BITSSecurity@fsroundtable.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1855a2886baa053d213316"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/5LDNgrPI8JTzK6a7r3W5Q-VXlk4>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 23:41:36 -0000
If the problem is the use of forward secrecy then there is a simple solution, don't use it. That is, you can, as a server, have a fixed key_share for which the secret exponent becomes the private key exactly as in the RSA case. It does require some careful analysis, though. But maybe I misunderstood the problem and maybe I should not be putting these surveillance-friendly ideas in people's minds... Hugo On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:19 PM, BITS Security < BITSSecurity@fsroundtable.org> wrote: > To: IETF TLS 1.3 Working Group Members > > My name is Andrew Kennedy and I work at BITS, the technology policy > division of the Financial Services Roundtable ( > http://www.fsroundtable.org/bits). My organization represents > approximately 100 of the top 150 US-based financial services companies > including banks, insurance, consumer finance, and asset management firms. > > I manage the Technology Cybersecurity Program, a CISO-driven forum to > investigate emerging technologies; integrate capabilities into member > operations; and advocate member, sector, cross-sector, and private-public > collaboration. > > While I am aware and on the whole supportive of the significant > contributions to internet security this important working group has made in > the last few years I recently learned of a proposed change that would > affect many of my organization's member institutions: the deprecation of > RSA key exchange. > > Deprecation of the RSA key exchange in TLS 1.3 will cause significant > problems for financial institutions, almost all of whom are running TLS > internally and have significant, security-critical investments in > out-of-band TLS decryption. > > Like many enterprises, financial institutions depend upon the ability to > decrypt TLS traffic to implement data loss protection, intrusion detection > and prevention, malware detection, packet capture and analysis, and DDoS > mitigation. Unlike some other businesses, financial institutions also rely > upon TLS traffic decryption to implement fraud monitoring and surveillance > of supervised employees. The products which support these capabilities > will need to be replaced or substantially redesigned at significant cost > and loss of scalability to continue to support the functionality financial > institutions and their regulators require. > > The impact on supervision will be particularly severe. Financial > institutions are required by law to store communications of certain > employees (including broker/dealers) in a form that ensures that they can > be retrieved and read in case an investigation into improper behavior is > initiated. The regulations which require retention of supervised employee > communications initially focused on physical and electronic mail, but now > extend to many other forms of communication including instant message, > social media, and collaboration applications. All of these communications > channels are protected using TLS. > > The impact on network diagnostics and troubleshooting will also be > serious. TLS decryption of network packet traces is required when > troubleshooting difficult problems in order to follow a transaction through > multiple layers of infrastructure and isolate the fault domain. The > pervasive visibility offered by out-of-band TLS decryption can't be > replaced by MITM infrastructure or by endpoint diagnostics. The result of > losing this TLS visibility will be unacceptable outage times as support > groups resort to guesswork on difficult problems. > > Although TLS 1.3 has been designed to meet the evolving security needs of > the Internet, it is vital to recognize that TLS is also being run > extensively inside the firewall by private enterprises, particularly those > that are heavily regulated. Furthermore, as more applications move off of > the desktop and into web browsers and mobile applications, dependence on > TLS is increasing. > > Eventually, either security vulnerabilities in TLS 1.2, deprecation of TLS > 1.2 by major browser vendors, or changes to regulatory standards will force > these enterprises - including financial institutions - to upgrade to TLS > 1.3. It is vital to financial institutions and to their customers and > regulators that these institutions be able to maintain both security and > regulatory compliance during and after the transition from TLS 1.2 to TLS > 1.3. > > At the current time viable TLS 1.3-compliant solutions to problems like > DLP, NIDS/NIPS, PCAP, DDoS mitigation, malware detection, and monitoring of > regulated employee communications appear to be immature or nonexistent. > There are serious cost, scalability, and security concerns with all of the > currently proposed alternatives to the existing out-of-band TLS decryption > architecture: > > - End point monitoring: This technique does not replace the pervasive > network visibility that private enterprises will lose without the RSA key > exchange. Ensuring that every endpoint has a monitoring agent installed > and functioning at all times is vastly more complex than ensuring that a > network traffic inspection appliance is present and functioning. In the > case of monitoring of supervised employee communications, moving the > monitoring function to the endpoint raises new security concerns focusing > on deliberate circumvention - because in the supervision use case the > threat vector is the possessor of the endpoint. > > - Exporting of ephemeral keys: This solution has scalability and > security problems on large, busy servers where it is not possible to know > ahead of time which session is going to be the important one. > > - Man-in-the-middle: This solution adds significant latency, key > management complexity, and production risk at each of the needed monitoring > layers. > > Until the critical concerns surrounding enterprise security, employee > supervision, and network troubleshooting are addressed as effectively as > internet MITM and surveillance threats have been, we, on behalf of our > members, are asking the TLS 1.3 Working Group to delay Last Call until a > workable and scalable solution is identified and vetted, and ultimately > adopted into the standard by the TLS 1.3 Working Group. > > Sincerely, > > Andrew Kennedy > Senior Program Manager, BITS > > > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
- [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Yuhong Bao
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Paterson, Kenny
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Kyle Rose
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Yuhong Bao
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Andrei Popov
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Xiaoyin Liu
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Hugo Krawczyk
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Colm MacCárthaigh
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Hugo Krawczyk
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ryan Carboni
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Colm MacCárthaigh
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Geoffrey Keating
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Thijs van Dijk
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Stephen Farrell
- [TLS] debugging tools [was: Industry Concerns abo… Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] debugging tools [was: Industry Concerns… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] debugging tools [was: Industry Concerns… Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 nalini.elkins
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Jeffrey Walton
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Dan Brown
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 nalini.elkins
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Jeffrey Walton
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Xiaoyin Liu
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Jeffrey Walton
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Adam Caudill
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Peter Bowen
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Bill Frantz
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Pawel Jakub Dawidek
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Brian Sniffen
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Hovav Shacham
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Pascal Urien
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Xiaoyin Liu
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Andrei Popov
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Geoffrey Keating
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Judson Wilson
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Seth David Schoen
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Michał Staruch
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ronald del Rosario
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Seth David Schoen
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Joachim Strömbergson
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Dan Brown
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Jeffrey Walton
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Dan Brown
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Bill Frantz
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Melinda Shore
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Melinda Shore
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Bill Frantz
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ryan Carboni
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Jeffrey Walton
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] debugging tools [was: Industry Concerns… Florian Weimer
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Florian Weimer
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 BITS Security
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Sean Turner
- Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 Ryan Carboni