Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft

Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com> Mon, 21 December 2009 17:04 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 EC1453A6A46 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:04:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 YOelKL3qtZRE for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:04:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com [64.74.157.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB443A6A0B for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7C1A8033 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:04:07 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=BVPbX/ZBxUgX z4hImvIDLelpD8U=; b=hPfZHu0ZSexCbN/sutDEezYab8CY3e1nyLRF0323/ifu bG+usfieLiMWSB2F08novA3cT1QubQB2dJGVTXTYL605mbPug3WHyW0rYGF2rKRg ZCsWa8s2u6DmOt3f78/ZA+IHRvJQyyXNWY54LW/JoxxsDgje+hoHjv8NnBwiJww=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=QmQruc gpmzxiXg+v06HPHivLZXm1uDi2A6KGLK2CcvRYD+MWhVs22vUC7sXF1RMRmoZP0F kAJld4CUrQw9+BO2NhNro/5kirP6/YSblmsFq3sAj3zPSjbp/W9RpUDuT0uri3NW 25EZvTSj4vV4Ifds1w3CpUSvbSnq7RFutM7kU=
Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101B9A8032 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:04:07 -0500 (EST)
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-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 932CEA8031 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:04:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B2FAAFB.5090908@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:06:03 -0800
From: Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tls@ietf.org
References: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E4A7EE854018@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local> <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB7758409B30F1@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB7758409B30F1@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D96D941C-EE52-11DE-A8C1-B34DBBB5EC2E-38729857!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com
Subject: Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
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: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:04:26 -0000

So what's the consensus on this?

   1) client MUST not send both signals, and a server MUST abort
      if it sees both

or

   2) client MAY send both signals, and the server MUST ignore
      SCSV when RI is present

I prefer (2) since there is no security problem with the client sending
both -- the only problem is the current wording in the spec.  Remember
the spec is currently a DRAFT, and that means it is open to changes!  I
don't understand the reluctance to clarify this.

Mike



Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com wrote:
> Uri Blumenthal wrote:
> 
>> OK. Karlsruhe server time-outs on me, so no chance to get enlightened
>> by checking that thread. Please indulge me: the one short compelling
>> reason why we don't want to say "when two signals are present use this
>> one and ignore the other" instead of "when two signals are present -
>> abort connection" - is...?
> 
> Well, if the spec says "the client MUST not send two signals", then if
> two signals are present, it's probably safer to abort (since the
> client is not following the spec anyway, it's hard to guess
> what its intent was...)
> 
> Best regards,
> Pasi
> (not wearing any hats)