Re: [TLS] RFC-4366-bis and the unrecognized_name(112) alert

Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com> Wed, 09 June 2010 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mike-list@pobox.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9263A69A9 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.938
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.172, BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2SryeWEF4hwd for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com [208.72.237.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D7C3A699E for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0034BABF1; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:13:54 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=oDDmBSD9898o FhN305UfSPWyxsM=; b=BLVN7FWvwfSlaBOJgCOD6Cxy8xf5owqSBvXNeafHhJai T2GcPjDOeLPLZBgK4S0QV4rm0fqWRzf8c8qyc9JQl3ppFGUsKSWilLzoKPbBWLNd o4O2M4MUgiuonTuLIsYhIypAQrwaut4SJYNzteYAQoua0LZk9uZXBE0NWHvLRXM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=XK6mVp uKI1gOYbrh/qwm3d8HYg/Pe9ReMiZvrm4Ot/9mK/rSEp7K70ms5L1nLffpA29Flw j76egdwjzhMsFh5hymcbNmVgos462G3HD8Wk7K67E2gYudHJ+xOTJEtuofZw58rY k47WVLpSGQivmbC0WqARL8iafe72Wrt6nt2MQ=
Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA24BABEE; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:13:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from administrators-macbook-pro.local (unknown [24.234.114.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E043BABED; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:13:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4C0FCBCC.1070600@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:13:48 -0700
From: Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
References: <4C0FA538.7050309@pobox.com> from "Michael D'Errico" at Jun 9, 10 07:29:12 am <201006091456.o59EukJ3015376@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50AA7E552@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50AA7E552@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 60918058-73EA-11DF-872C-6730EE7EF46B-38729857!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] RFC-4366-bis and the unrecognized_name(112) alert
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:13:58 -0000

I agree Martin's text is better than mine.  But I'd like to modify
it slightly:

    Sending a warning-level unrecognized_name(112) alert in the
    latter case is allowed, but NOT RECOMMENDED since .....
                ^^^^^^^^^^

Mike


Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
> Thanks,  
> 
> The text below looks much better looks much better. Let's go with that. 
> 
> Joe
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Rex [mailto:mrex@sap.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 7:57 AM
>> To: Michael D'Errico
>> Cc: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); tls@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [TLS] RFC-4366-bis and the unrecognized_name(112) alert
>>
>> Michael D'Errico wrote:
>>> After reading this again, I think it's missing something.
>> I felt the same.
>>
>> Another possible approach would be to slightly rearrange that part.
>>
>>  "The ServerNameList MUST NOT contain more than one name of the same
>>   name_type.  If the server understood the client hello extension,
>>
>>   but does not recognize the server name, the server has two options.
>>   Either abort the handshake sending a fatal unrecognized_name(112)
>>   alert or continue the handshake using a default credential.
>>   Sending a warning-level unrecognized_name(112) alert in the latter
>>   case is NOT RECOMMENDED, since existing client behaviour is
>>   unpredictable.
>>
>>
>>>> A TLS client implementation that receives a
>>>> warning-level unrecognized_name(112) alert SHOULD ignore this
> alert
>> and
>>>> continue the TLS handshake.  If there is a mismatch between the
> server
>>>> name used by the client application and the server name of the
> default
>>>> credential chosen by the server, this mismatch will become
> apparent
>> when
>>>> the client application performs the server endpoint
> identification, at
>>>> which point the client application will have to decide whether to
>>>> proceed with the communication.  TLS implementations are
> encouraged to
>>>> make information available to application callers about
> warning-level
>>>> alerts that were received or sent during a TLS handshake.  Such
>>>> information can be useful for diagnostic purposes."
>> -Martin
>