Re: [TLS] TLS client puzzles

Hannes Tschofenig <> Wed, 06 July 2016 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956C412D662 for <>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.026
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7MJGV9ccWg27 for <>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92C4512D62D for <>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MCLQ1-1bBmfM05T7-009CaJ; Wed, 06 Jul 2016 22:23:25 +0200
To: Kyle Rose <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Hannes Tschofenig <>
Openpgp: id=071A97A9ECBADCA8E31E678554D9CEEF4D776BC9
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 22:23:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0wFI3nHHDKuSjuqIQN16CVGfXP6dvRt3P"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:soMO03gAI5fuI/j/xZMKZBEhk5DtIoDt+BU1sV8HDuOY2G8NL3w NFVjbj9PcqpzbwMO3+kZKSwzHnS/pfzDeKYVQyi4Q13etgz65kubVsFu/VRvP2qXgF0xs/8 gXJebXxE712TWVgL7VpColElkLuypHOrTu0SOJNBFz63bUHVpm8mZXPAeDtPX97nrA1WJMp KPbWdg8sHFmR7oBs3X5Rg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:azgm2GSmfM8=:njtsAxdq1X9W4ez4tdtQi1 qCSywXQ+bqXLBTXL185+03fZWQTlMdf+NxAVH+PNKjHhWql+VEOsywfsBAi8srFr4/EXZ46Gv MGlKS99N4On1Y99oenl26LZkPNzHfNENK2L0+fxSBnGK74SYNbNpaVrsDj+5dwOOOY7HJVhE2 781ezpFx8dj/T/MY7rSQXA40mSs6gK7azkHh5lubx+0khU2Tyx+w9Sjl6qSuuO9FtxQqZE/Pz xrAEnQXMVJSYjjZID/SkMRfLKphVcccLxnOeorkPpzn11qbDL8pxwSVhICf79FyCw0urCs3d9 7a9gu5Kgx3UmaJImfBw6nP4aCodTd0QUFCRftUz/ZIvSqBxFSxy6xRWJIhpRSjOLAibLx64/f 03PtcpKSoLjmJws1MbvUvAkjBaNB9ay+v8b+6592gzeSadIQ3Den+NzUQx3TF3iHehUY9K8L5 Q0h9YpUujHmnBb0UW8dvC7nE6UOSXs99/ENn5s1A/XRbIKvG3j+pMRcBENB3JmiqsF5oylbyw 9zjjhEtvdfvfeAhnR7UUZSxwdpC0HXaGbh93iurKqYUum9L1d+cz5+aI3E/avdslZDXSbywaF 9MRsug64rVFp9+qQ9bY06GYW9GPSFEgTROQPp3r7cXN8XN9JHA6UvrR5DyjJouoEtY2EUuvcV lKPoqOnuHnVfEp7TJPDCQwpfQtiuukCRMPl54jBzmGyb9BtAnWrfkxNFaHksKTYOzfJGM9Tcm 7EhVBCtRu1V/ASzubJ8/wKwsqhCIl7y+oNUbphYIiSuvNHW7dzoR5KYyMuk=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "<>" <>, Dmitry Khovratovich <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS client puzzles
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 20:23:31 -0000


the question for me is whether it will be an effective mechanism when
many devices just do not support it (for a number of reasons)? For IoT
devices the reason is simple: they don't have MBs of memory.

Even the regular puzzle technique has the problem that you have to
adjust the puzzle difficulty and what is a piece of cake for a desktop
computer kills the battery of an IoT device.

(And note that I am not saying that IoT devices aren't used for DDoS

On 07/06/2016 10:16 PM, Kyle Rose wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
> < <>> wrote:
>     I agree with Brian here on this issue. This is clearly impractical for
>     IoT devices. For many of those devices we are talking about 32 KB (in
>     total). 
> I continue to feel like this is a valid objection to the wrong
> proposition. I don't think the question is, "Should TLS client puzzles
> be issued by all TLS servers under load?" but rather, "Would client
> puzzles be a useful addition to the DDoS toolbox, and appropriate in
> some cases?"
> Kyle