Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Tue, 27 September 2016 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC8D12B31F for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FJZGIeHgsd_f for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from welho-filter4.welho.com (welho-filter4.welho.com [83.102.41.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0397D12B320 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter4.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CE8165B2; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:24:14 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp1.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.84]) by localhost (welho-filter4.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.26]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L8w7odf9dRu4; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:24:14 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-100-237-87.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.100.237.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7ABAC4; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:24:14 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:24:09 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: BITS Security <BITSSecurity@fsroundtable.org>
Message-ID: <20160927182409.GA26653@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <394611bf-208f-03d3-620c-79aaf169645b@cs.tcd.ie> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0DBC66AE@PWN401EA120.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> <CAH8yC8kgYzYXwJ01NkK7WYxD-diponWEQOd+MNHssm+bLHE54w@mail.gmail.com> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0DBC699B@PWN401EA120.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> <CACsn0c=5vjzQmr=ah6sH1JzTj3peaKad7aCPertcqD4B2DLKiA@mail.gmail.com> <72011214.413503.1474650126973@mail.yahoo.com> <e24a06b8d0d04ccc80b9a55d83bf5606@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <DM5PR11MB141926C5806296FFD7252A45F4C80@DM5PR11MB1419.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABcZeBNCoB6hd-c-x8tzT3k7ZFKs85NS04Fs-_CO+U4YZ-WjQg@mail.gmail.com> <DM5PR11MB1419BC83C76834E7C0CC0B7CF4CC0@DM5PR11MB1419.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR11MB1419BC83C76834E7C0CC0B7CF4CC0@DM5PR11MB1419.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/C8_ewdM18beMwTxs_aliEGfYDiI>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:24:18 -0000

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 06:07:28PM +0000, BITS Security wrote:
> Hi Eric--Thank you for the prompt.  
> 
> Our requirements are for the same capabilities we have today with TLS
> 1.2, namely to be able to take a trace anywhere in our enterprise and
> decrypt it out of band (assuming that we own the TLS server).  This
> includes traces taken from physical taps, traces from span or mirror
> ports, traces from the virtual environment, and/or traces from agents
> on workstations.  We need to be able to apply a key to sniffer 
> devices, security and fraud monitoring tools, APM devices, and/or TLS
> decryption appliances.  

No changes to standards are going to happen to make that any easier.
Don't waste your time.


-Ilari