Re: [TLS] draft-dkg-tls-reject-static-dh

Peter Gutmann <> Fri, 07 December 2018 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2C9124BF6 for <>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 23:14:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nbOd9elUNI05 for <>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 23:14:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81C32126DBF for <>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 23:14:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1544166862; x=1575702862; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+5gAPKIBWAfrceCiiAKc3Yfz9icAd350jexxkqF277k=; b=I6oZevKV6k7kuZHC9r/Plpzc6DYW3UnA675JR1BjesHfuywhctThdUCx DGPkvin6SACfUnZzyHmthdcHaqdQRvztvdnDahHXWwUwfvgbGknApLW6n p7GXfrqjWNDr8IuLZFP2ofpldL29Ma6qHepLIMbQHGXOa8RHMWLSEhWlm 2W9PgjLh8+48LroirO/8aldlzjdkGGwLmhjbYIGw8yn8k5trml6aFbcY1 3HiOTXd4nXn+jAIe+cmczkDE5fqmvdNnym3rdfmefun4cwQ5stdoFTSMX UhBlwTYrPFPry81AzbjqpoiQsyAWdtm89tfZTvr4AOD/uTKw2h7KMVGZ2 A==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,324,1539601200"; d="scan'208";a="42368895"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 07 Dec 2018 20:14:18 +1300
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 20:14:18 +1300
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 20:14:17 +1300
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: Nico Williams <>
CC: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <>, Stephen Farrell <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] draft-dkg-tls-reject-static-dh
Thread-Index: AQHUjMy2+Ip4vOdFW02pqhJ3jndT6qVxloSAgAE690z//yyCgIAA4O8n
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 07:14:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>,<20181207064745.GU15561@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20181207064745.GU15561@localhost>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-dkg-tls-reject-static-dh
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 07:14:28 -0000

Nico Williams <> writes:

>If it's different then that's costing the server the resources to generate
>it, which is precisely what its operator didn't want when they enabled eDH
>key reuse.

It depends on what those resources are, at one end you've got proper DHE with
a full modexp required, at the other end if you can fake it with something as
lightweight as a mod-add or similar it's essentially free while defeating DHE-
reuse detection.

I appreciate that people feel strongly about this, and I support the idea of
non-ephemeral DHE detection in principal [0] (along with many, many other
measures to strengthen TLS), but this draft reads a lot like the IETF blowing
raspberries at ETSI.  

Some years ago a draft was rejected by, of all places, PKIX, for being
"workgroup posturing", and that's what this seems to be.  The IETF could make
its point by releasing a statement saying they don't support what ETSI is
doing, but getting into an arms race you know you can't win seems like, well,
workgroup posturing.


[0] "In principal" because there's a fair bit of SCADA gear that does this
    because it doesn't have the CPU power to generate new DHE values, as I 
    found out when I turned on non-DHE checking some years ago.