Re: [TLS] Data volume limits

Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> Mon, 28 December 2015 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <fweimer@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717671AC414 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:08:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 SpxzY8kZOSRm for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E6901AC412 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1617BC0B7E0E for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:08:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (ovpn-204-34.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.34]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBSK8AZp013190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:08:12 -0500
To: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>, tls@ietf.org
References: <r422Ps-10112i-A7598D6B042F444AA21AABEA3552ADF5@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local> <1575673.4lLVr77Sve@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <568196AA.4040100@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:08:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1575673.4lLVr77Sve@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/5am2J-624Oq-wdPl01ShzgXMuKw>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Data volume limits
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <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: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:08:14 -0000

On 12/21/2015 01:41 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:

> if the rekey doesn't allow the application to change authentication 
> tokens (as it now stands), then rekey is much more secure than 
> renegotiation was in TLS <= 1.2

You still have the added complexity that during rekey, you need to
temporarily switch from mere sending or receiving to at least
half-duplex interaction.

Florian