Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10.txt

Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com> Wed, 03 June 2015 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bascule@gmail.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 24F381B35DD for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 IRFSZRwm-44d for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (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 065F01B35D6 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oiww2 with SMTP id w2so655180oiw.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 23:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=SWtbzHOcLnaL2/tYE1FSy2GoLAXfwj44myb1f04yTGo=; b=o6JiaW96MY4gqDJ4okLl8ffuSienu+b8fEER64XXu6cVUUr2tKqJgd6audRej9msJl 8EwZT5wIxKNpgKPy7AqWyrt/K29vYwsBoyxO6/r6uR/yu8vyZmW01Cstz4RtGHxcKFAC Lu6UDMS/3s/Y13Vz+YX7DX15mDdJ1ZeD++cB7yIHmMI6pCPQzm1ztjtaiWZO28LRruBU qzro4POXcBx/P7lEKV3c2ei0rywsBnS/xOm4CRIFRXPNgopBhVVkgSCam6cxZOGOMCc6 5uYQn1h/ZgrcVE0LwwZsULtX6p6NWshIRgdLeJiEQzqYKSfc4Lqk9iGaVRmcDW2wcG2H NIpA==
X-Received: by 10.60.123.116 with SMTP id lz20mr10904612oeb.82.1433314431544; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 23:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.110.241 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHOTMVLpmS94cBZOxu6e3-e2MMO+Z0SAvPb7dWW47jQqXpT9+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150601225057.17500.96911.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHOTMVJ1xu+mEaROWKuEtW1E8Ks3r3gKagEM9mJdBOKW3kSZJQ@mail.gmail.com> <1474500.r0W7gM0pAO@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <CAHOTMVJgqqRBYWR+8LtwxfdRVWxEXLZAgzr5Q-1DH7ejONAGnw@mail.gmail.com> <m2lhg1b8us.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <CAHOTMVLrgUNi449DQwggt556ioEeXCQTUN+M3phBftPk88xtOw@mail.gmail.com> <BLU177-W17E87DB68F54CE64BDC44C3B40@phx.gbl> <CAHOTMVLpmS94cBZOxu6e3-e2MMO+Z0SAvPb7dWW47jQqXpT9+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:53:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHOTMV+jzv3SUt4B9oTejbwkXa=0ofD+asuO0uz-EAUqKdc_Gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yuhong Bao <yuhongbao_386@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d60068b314d051797851c
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/6mhcndia_mhwIX8UhTm0SN6psgE>
Cc: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>, TLS WG <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10.txt
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: <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, 03 Jun 2015 06:53:57 -0000

Perhaps you have a test case with a Java 6 or 7 client using the Sun/Oracle
JCE provider? What *actually* happens there?

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes sorry I meant ClientKeyExchange...
>
> But can you explain to me how this solves the problem for legacy clients?
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Yuhong Bao <yuhongbao_386@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The client don't receive the ServerKeyExchange message containing the DHE
>> key at all until after they sent the ClientHello.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> > From: bascule@gmail.com
>> > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:35:46 -0700
>> > To: geoffk@geoffk.org
>> > CC: tls@ietf.org
>> > Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10.txt
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Geoffrey Keating
>> > <geoffk@geoffk.org<mailto:geoffk@geoffk.org>> wrote:
>> > It's covered in section 4:
>> >
>> > If at least one FFDHE ciphersuite is present in the client
>> > ciphersuite list, and the Supported Groups extension is either absent
>> > from the ClientHello
>> >
>> > Unless I'm mistaken, unless you configure the
>> > jdk.tls.disabledAlgorithms property explicitly (with e.g. "DHE keySize
>> >> 2048"), Java clients are aborting *before* they send the ClientHello.
>> > Please let me know if you're seeing otherwise. I could be mistaken and
>> > perhaps there's a server-side workaround for this that isn't "disable
>> > all DHE ciphersuites". But this is what I've personally observed and
>> > have been advising people about.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying it can't be fixed with additional
>> > configuration/errata/etc, I'm arguing that it's *breaking clients in
>> > the field right now*
>> >
>> > tl;dr: I am seeing *widespread TLS breakages* because of this resulting
>> > in *huge outages* for Java clients
>> >
>> > --
>> > Tony Arcieri
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list
>> > TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Tony Arcieri
>



-- 
Tony Arcieri