Re: [TLS] TLS renegotiation issue

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Fri, 06 November 2009 03:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@sun.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 57BF83A69D8 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:32:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 jiHovmFnFWl3 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B413A6867 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id nA63XI9X018713 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 03:33:18 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id nA63XIrA054480 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:33:18 -0700 (MST)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA63Ll8R009926; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:21:47 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id nA63Lkp9009925; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:21:46 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:21:46 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Message-ID: <20091106032146.GT1105@Sun.COM>
References: <73843DF9-EFCB-4B8D-913E-FE2235E5BDD3@rtfm.com> <d3aa5d00911051016p7a0cc508q2090b86de30a50d5@mail.gmail.com> <20091105230343.GO1105@Sun.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20091105230343.GO1105@Sun.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS renegotiation issue
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: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:32:57 -0000

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 05:03:44PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 10:16:11AM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > I now have a draft extension up at:
> > 
> > https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
> > https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.xml
> > 
> > Comments welcome.
> 
> More comments:
> 
>  - Consider an implementation like Windows' SSPI-based implementation.
>    Or, for that matter, the old GGF (Global Grid Forum) GSS-API
>    interface to TLS.

I've thought about this some more.  I think now that what I considered a
layering violation earlier today actually isn't.  A security mechanism
that takes an input channel binding, removes the channel binding type
prefix then splits the remainder into two octet strings, with each
end-point sending one half, is actually conformant to RFC5056.

Therefore I have no further objections, and, for now, no further
comments.

Nico
--