Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08
mrex@sap.com (Martin Rex) Wed, 01 April 2015 04:27 UTC
Return-Path: <mrex@sap.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 CFDC21A8790 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 SCWdz0aEhone for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpde01.smtp.sap-ag.de (smtpde01.smtp.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD4DB1A878E for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail05.wdf.sap.corp (mail05.sap.corp [194.39.131.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtpde01.smtp.sap-ag.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37D112AC42; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 06:27:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-purgate-ID: 152705::1427862452-000007DF-6C5D491D/0/0
X-purgate-size: 1014
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate-type: clean
Received: from ld9781.wdf.sap.corp (ld9781.wdf.sap.corp [10.21.82.193]) by mail05.wdf.sap.corp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468B9432C1; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 06:27:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by ld9781.wdf.sap.corp (Postfix, from userid 10159) id 403F61B256; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 06:27:31 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUx7J4b+FCs73y=_wEUr3XCd6TFod6eameoqhdXHyvUNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 06:27:31 +0200
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL125 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <20150401042731.403F61B256@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp>
From: mrex@sap.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/AJXp8NjJNamf-59l8z0gfPRzoIY>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
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, 01 Apr 2015 04:27:37 -0000
Martin Thomson wrote: > Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> >> #1 Have we tested in the wild that using elliptic_curves (10) >> in the ClientHello won't trigger some ECC code that causes >> handshakes to barf? > > Firefox sends the supported_curves extension in every handshake and so > do most browsers. So for those, the risk of intolerance is obviously > quite low. That's not hard numbers obviously, but that's a lot of > ClientHello messages with the extension. I think Stephen might have meant something else. RFC4492 contains the following explicit prohibition (Section 4, 4th paragr.): https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4492#section-4 The client MUST NOT include these extensions in the ClientHello message if it does not propose any ECC cipher suites. and the above requirement seems to prohibit a non-ECC client from using the named FFDHE parameters through the ECC named curve extension _without_ accompanying ECC cipher suites. -Martin
- [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-d… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Sean Turner
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Geoffrey Keating
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Santiago Zanella
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Santiago Zanella
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-… Santiago Zanella