Re: [TLS] renego, patricide, putting out to stud, etc.

David-Sarah Hopwood <david-sarah@jacaranda.org> Thu, 31 December 2009 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <djhopwood@googlemail.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 BEE783A67EE for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:03:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, 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 sZpbA1mLLgXS for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:03:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ew0-f214.google.com (mail-ew0-f214.google.com [209.85.219.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B963A6824 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:03:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so11749160ewy.29 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:03:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type; bh=ZAdxtmAJJ9QAI66iFp8CSZDY24IUsC4vN/wzJ304JE0=; b=pfjgirfeyfbYQCHochNTMUYPuV/xb1ncXLWmZ4nApAp86ZYndfh5iIHkb3INBcTx6i hG6G03EcIZtwccpnScL3fPw9XM+hNXUfIMu90jvc3xV3+hIEfzbchsauurlIavNVBWGo jbzJRnEwfPRzqLCZq/Ywr7CD6Wbmnij4xPMW4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; b=K958J1dLkOox/GJRrgZ12rbjx+CHKMMMbqhV6YheAe2EQ+B/IEpmf4WBtCHqGh0cgW eXchIvagDJ4fCMV1SCQz9hjzG28uUCFI2mYxYniRhRDv9UjNu7PBuSVDKSyNx+h2X+wS VY0p74/xyAJAqS5BJgK979/X8EdfDbsn9eELk=
Received: by 10.213.110.17 with SMTP id l17mr14559641ebp.91.1262289806868; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:03:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.0.2? (5e058d2d.bb.sky.com [94.5.141.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm30551919eyz.31.2009.12.31.12.03.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:03:25 -0800 (PST)
Sender: David-Sarah Hopwood <djhopwood@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <4B3D0388.7010709@jacaranda.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:03:20 +0000
From: David-Sarah Hopwood <david-sarah@jacaranda.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tls@ietf.org
References: <3561bdcc0912302220t7fad9ccfqf5103e6f120288ba@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3561bdcc0912302220t7fad9ccfqf5103e6f120288ba@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4BCA2B9A0647EBF853736CA1"
Subject: Re: [TLS] renego, patricide, putting out to stud, etc.
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: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:03:51 -0000

Ravi Ganesan wrote:
>>> Ravi Ganesan wrote:
>>> ii) A node can create a child node by performing renegotiation, followed by
>>> a full handshake. Such a full-renego-child, starts afresh with new values
>>> for all of the first five parameters. The only parameter which keeps it tied
>>> to this tree is the renegotiation-information, which is derived from the
>>> handshake and the parent-node's renegotiation-information. The primary
>>> use-case for this technique is  to update authentication-knowledge of the
>>> Server (i.e. does it know who the Client is?).  The creation of such a child
>>> node means the parent node can no longer be used.
> 
>> That (the last sentence) is not the case, as far as I'm aware. Renegotiating
>> on some connection currently associated with a session does not mean that
>> that session can no longer be resumed.
> 
> What I meant by 'that node can no longer be used', is that since the
> effective encryption/hashing keys have been rolled over,
> trying to send data using the values in that node to the side should
> not work. In that sense either of the renego child nodes renders its
> parent inactive.

OK, but that's a fairly complicated way of describing the semantics. Also
you used the term "session" to describe the nodes:

# Treating each session as a node in a graph we can get a tree rooted at
# the ROOT.

which is not consistent with "that node can no longer be used", since the
*session* can be reused.

Per connection, the progression of connection states is linear, not a tree,
and that's the simplest way of describing it.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood  ⚥  http://davidsarah.livejournal.com