IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Security review of TLS1.3 0-RTT

Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> Tue, 23 May 2017 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <bkaduk@akamai.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 E6AD712EAAA for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2017 12:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 INx3n1e4ouhK for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2017 12:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3D5512EAA6 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 May 2017 12:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v4NJH6x5021544; Tue, 23 May 2017 20:22:31 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=subject : to : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type; s=jan2016.eng; bh=JyFXG3CjxU13eewe9MbgYa02bPqpzdrqNoOaGrvfKEc=; b=OoJJ+4SmiNqDxOHvOgZ4YH3xWVOwS9di9FAK4mYyaImePZihcP9dzpIXYD4EpmeP0zj3 gE97reiRzU7+ksgzstPdUPgu5NXUWNpu5dxajlSK18y3R3lfPO8ix32FecIPiFeyDpl8 7NJnOKORqJe1xfUUKvw0IF+QCakV6hSkFIcZ1xzL+bHr5dMgXiEWQuPavuaOHUrWU/M8 hEMmeNUKsoY8tjowoZ00uwtyZMhShN05xUbivVP6sM9w1C4kWeGmp6A3VESbfiwQtzq+ EAIluPW6xKuDdaMB/68Dff3v6vD23bvcvKdPt5rnjqQIGhmGHEbkyUb8vQ1O1b9VCYRH eQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (a184-51-33-19.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2amtyk02pe-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 May 2017 20:22:30 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v4NJLUcd000442; Tue, 23 May 2017 15:22:30 -0400
Received: from prod-mail-relay10.akamai.com ([172.27.118.251]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2ajh4uswb6-1; Tue, 23 May 2017 15:22:30 -0400
Received: from [172.19.17.86] (bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.19.17.86]) by prod-mail-relay10.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35EA1FC73; Tue, 23 May 2017 19:22:29 +0000 (GMT)
To: Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net>, TLS WG <tls@ietf.org>
References: <CAAF6GDcKZj9F-eKAeVj0Uw4aX_EgQ4DuJczL4=fsaFyG9Yjcgw@mail.gmail.com> <20170519095316.GA30080@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CAAF6GDeuRMZx9MRynrxMp1fCvRS2jjr0vcqt0R89cJEkD6u=rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170520101616.GC32428@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CABcZeBNj_X4qbXrH4732kQiAHrBpPZhW1nmn4Xnp-pm0gv1Psg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAF6GDcEKaBaJZU0q822KqoJDL5kyZJGbOBKsnU9tnpU=YvoxA@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR15MB1182F59E2B60534CB20EC9C4AFF80@MWHPR15MB1182.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <CAAF6GDeNWpKM_Uu5zN70gW9L=WSLZVJhi=OZwYOC3y24zuphpQ@mail.gmail.com> <f8f8db4a-7d4e-590b-25c2-b1cbac6b5313@huitema.net> <CAAF6GDcarzUXiEAxBm9RaLQT5A3B=2TPkngEavEY=wQMHU=9Gw@mail.gmail.com> <1c188f36-c197-20f7-48e4-5d75ac4a2211@akamai.com> <CAAF6GDfCRD3nQmr0JB75CxLkqjmDiWn9co0DXCJHwS3TK625WA@mail.gmail.com> <55096b5d-dc74-fae4-57e3-83d4355d6050@huitema.net> <86A85A1E-A0A2-4692-ADB1-D5126E421B70@dukhovni.org> <CAAF6GDeum-XLt+f3_q9CRabC7Ro_0quu90jWVhaWeYbJntfzZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <af78dc96-cfb6-da62-924a-7f7b9961e062@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 14:22:29 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAF6GDeum-XLt+f3_q9CRabC7Ro_0quu90jWVhaWeYbJntfzZA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------AA2573D6DC1541079F27D2DE"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-23_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705230098
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-23_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705230098
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Cy5Kq4M806z7282LzrxvNZMni-Y>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Security review of TLS1.3 0-RTT
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 23 May 2017 19:22:36 -0000

On 05/23/2017 01:07 PM, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
>
> I've seen a number of arguments here that essentially boil down to
> "We'd like to keep it anyway, because it is so operationally
> convenient". Is that really how this process works? Don't demonstrable
> real-world attacks deserve deference?

The process is more like "once the participants have gotten used to an
idea, it takes some time to digest countervailing reasoning when
potentially subtle issues are involved".  Without yet taking a position
myself, it seems like at least some folks are coming around to see your
position, and the dialogue should continue.

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email