Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10.txt
Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com> Wed, 03 June 2015 07:33 UTC
Return-Path: <bascule@gmail.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 438B81B35EF
for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 00:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 9KzgiKSEUpNQ for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 3 Jun 2015 00:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F0491B35EE
for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 00:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oifu123 with SMTP id u123so1196692oif.1
for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=1nVOGm/RA/UYFrZnPhTif3af0aWZ3tEG7ebE8awgvGk=;
b=jTqOe5Svy3+Gbyl9K2ET0k6gP5+PnRXiK4PgP4ziPJHRx8M2frva2d48bT5leb01Ds
ySA3aJ9yz/OKztEdDitU8WktvHmj3ZRC6t7JayUqTBdgRo2rGxZ5HvEtDvSxrJevjJ/Q
cm66DVCoGwu5FyMk/pheAnd0tywMlHxwwGyxcuiXF1vDDkN+SfHvrf/VB68Hxnj9dar3
DTixJticKcqBSKHwsUO/e0wRz55Jcm2pfSSu+alZKZCFmrvB/YxoUYJo5Y1lPbkiqKR7
n+9eIJlPUEpN/3ihfi4LAfLfiaYhmzhbJTM0azXXnr/7AWOZFJ9nP7t1qRPkhEpQR7xW
7Edg==
X-Received: by 10.182.115.161 with SMTP id jp1mr26640950obb.53.1433316807537;
Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.110.241 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 00:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHOTMV+FxxG7tpq55UyKs+q06uk5H-dCqkTswBDJsM=5Bv6pqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150601225057.17500.96911.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
<CAHOTMVJ1xu+mEaROWKuEtW1E8Ks3r3gKagEM9mJdBOKW3kSZJQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1474500.r0W7gM0pAO@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
<CAHOTMVJgqqRBYWR+8LtwxfdRVWxEXLZAgzr5Q-1DH7ejONAGnw@mail.gmail.com>
<m2lhg1b8us.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
<CAHOTMVLrgUNi449DQwggt556ioEeXCQTUN+M3phBftPk88xtOw@mail.gmail.com>
<BLU177-W17E87DB68F54CE64BDC44C3B40@phx.gbl>
<CAHOTMVLpmS94cBZOxu6e3-e2MMO+Z0SAvPb7dWW47jQqXpT9+A@mail.gmail.com>
<BLU177-W1EA1B34A70F648FD8C139C3B40@phx.gbl>
<CAHOTMV+FxxG7tpq55UyKs+q06uk5H-dCqkTswBDJsM=5Bv6pqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 00:33:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHOTMV+_fX6px509LSZHwXMO_OAD5=0y9i+46XUd9w=-cyXb-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yuhong Bao <yuhongbao_386@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01182cf229fb4105179813a0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Df89IVJtDIV3lZ2ogSl95hL_5Z8>
Cc: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>, TLS WG <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10.txt
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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, 03 Jun 2015 07:33:30 -0000
Here's a real-world example of what I've just been going through with regard to Java and DHE: https://github.com/jruby/jruby/issues/2872 Note the ticket is about the general problem, and in the course of it there have been multiple manifestations of the problem. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com> wrote: > So this is the exact problem I've been talking about. > > After this draft is actually implemented in all TLS servers everywhere, > server operators can add Java-specific errata to their configuration to > work around the fundamental problem that DHE is breaking Java TLS > handshakes. > > Or you can just add the Java property I cited above. Which is total > oddball errata. Nobody should have to worry about jdk.tls.disabledAlgorithms="DHE > keySize > 2048" > > This is just adding to the "headache" of maintaining a modern TLS stack. > > I'll freely admit I just made mistakes trying to diagnose this problem but > as a practitioner I seriously don't care about supporting these things and > want them to just go away and for TLS handshakes to just work and not > spontaneously break because of misconfigurations. > > I don't see how adding more complexity fixes the problem. > > I just want DHE to diediedie. > > Perhaps someone can explain how keeping DHE around is actually beneficial > in any way whatsover? Right now it's just giving me a headache and making > me angry. > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Yuhong Bao <yuhongbao_386@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> The idea is that the server can send a different weaker DHE key in the >> ServerKeyExchange, or not use DHE suites at all. >> >> ________________________________ >> > From: bascule@gmail.com >> > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:52:36 -0700 >> > Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10.txt >> > To: yuhongbao_386@hotmail.com >> > CC: geoffk@geoffk.org; tls@ietf.org >> > >> > Yes sorry I meant ClientKeyExchange... >> > >> > But can you explain to me how this solves the problem for legacy >> clients? >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Yuhong Bao >> > <yuhongbao_386@hotmail.com<mailto:yuhongbao_386@hotmail.com>> wrote: >> > The client don't receive the ServerKeyExchange message containing the >> > DHE key at all until after they sent the ClientHello. >> > >> > ________________________________ >> >> From: bascule@gmail.com<mailto:bascule@gmail.com> >> >> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:35:46 -0700 >> >> To: geoffk@geoffk.org<mailto:geoffk@geoffk.org> >> >> CC: tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org> >> >> Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10.txt >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Geoffrey Keating >> >> >> > <geoffk@geoffk.org<mailto:geoffk@geoffk.org><mailto:geoffk@geoffk.org >> <mailto:geoffk@geoffk.org>>> >> > wrote: >> >> It's covered in section 4: >> >> >> >> If at least one FFDHE ciphersuite is present in the client >> >> ciphersuite list, and the Supported Groups extension is either absent >> >> from the ClientHello >> >> >> >> Unless I'm mistaken, unless you configure the >> >> jdk.tls.disabledAlgorithms property explicitly (with e.g. "DHE keySize >> >>> 2048"), Java clients are aborting *before* they send the ClientHello. >> >> Please let me know if you're seeing otherwise. I could be mistaken and >> >> perhaps there's a server-side workaround for this that isn't "disable >> >> all DHE ciphersuites". But this is what I've personally observed and >> >> have been advising people about. >> >> >> >> I'm not saying it can't be fixed with additional >> >> configuration/errata/etc, I'm arguing that it's *breaking clients in >> >> the field right now* >> >> >> >> tl;dr: I am seeing *widespread TLS breakages* because of this resulting >> >> in *huge outages* for Java clients >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Tony Arcieri >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list >> >> TLS@ietf.org<mailto:TLS@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Tony Arcieri >> > > > > > -- > Tony Arcieri > -- Tony Arcieri
- [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dh… internet-drafts
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Yuhong Bao
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Geoffrey Keating
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Yuhong Bao
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Yuhong Bao
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Peter Bowen
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Dave Kern
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Jeffrey Walton
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Dave Garrett
- [TLS] drop ffdhe2048? (was: I-D Action: draft-iet… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] drop ffdhe2048? (was: I-D Action: draft… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Dave Kern
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-f… Tony Arcieri