Re: [TLS] RFC 7919 on Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)

David Benjamin <> Fri, 19 August 2016 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BD012DA9F for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.946
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ONwd6yx6Lkn for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D21F712DA99 for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m101so56703049ioi.2 for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DZYHdk1HWcCFODuhFaEAOgbptl8h555q+Nvzug6v5+w=; b=iwk4OsoznEEPuS6uJlaPr2hnXwYPG4aWCESDrlv3BesGdpnbOkZPoOCeC9HexTC4iI AF97zQT3wMgzsGPmZ3BAAqWxLe7JSlNO2E45e2gnUDyWETfz2gYeMflToajPUlCDUojR oFLlymZqbE7HQg5oigI5/bie0E84PwDsLzJVM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DZYHdk1HWcCFODuhFaEAOgbptl8h555q+Nvzug6v5+w=; b=kIyp682GWTMjY5wnwZrNg+IjK4JyyyFcDlO1YxFnJmqr2dXrF3/8xmjbmdH6SqOzRt EGfsQqJTD9GpByfjI0CRzmGf9l/80kM35lfB0H8xVHzMUGiQh3ZT69pXioCpfGXrshcZ 0uSP4Kov0zNaABvnqj2nZDLhw2EpVTZwUzm5o6lbQ1NFx9M5rn3FVTGOfXv80+CK5r5N TMSZSLQbvqrVXnsS9w5y95BABCH6b8+QU5vEZ0VZLZ4eXvAObDdaCS4Z3keTo0wrYaqb H63Q3nV51xeO9lCu0yiQ5SFgj4W1LBtlb9uSUiO9wjzbYXCmzRXaQC/GrUarJ4plLKkc 74uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuorrlaP487vVTGd/IVrCIQ4EslPs47TglIATMX4v5++fdTwQCu9yhlhZkmPaaA/2oBi+1MbXB5RkOfVCHz
X-Received: by with SMTP id b189mr12078670ioa.6.1471632203044; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <m260qwppxa.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <m260qwppxa.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
From: David Benjamin <>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:43:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
To: Geoffrey Keating <>, Peter Gutmann <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11440f7eb42cac053a7112f4
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] RFC 7919 on Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:43:26 -0000

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:35 PM Geoffrey Keating <> wrote:

> Peter Gutmann <> writes:
> > The problem is that 7919 doesn't say "I want to do DHE, if possible
> > with these parameters", it says "I will only accept DHE if you use
> > these parameters, otherwise you cannot use DHE but must drop back to
> > RSA".  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face, you'd
> > have to have rocks in your head to want to break your implementation
> > like that.
> Actually, my problem with the RFC is the reverse.  If you have an
> implementation which won't accept certain DH groups, and those are
> extremely common in legacy software (1024-bit, for example), there's
> no way to stop those legacy implementations ignoring the extension and
> choosing DH, which you will then have to reject, doubling connection
> establishment time.
> So Apple's client still has DH off.
> However I don't see a helpful solution to this; the obvious thing is
> to have a new ciphersuite, but it's hard to see how that would be
> worth the effort if it requires new implementations and ECDHE is
> already standardised and already implemented in many places.

TLS 1.3 will resolve this with the new cipher suite negotiation, but I
agree this makes the specification basically undeployable with TLS 1.2.
This issue also got brought up here:

Barring unforeseen problems, Chrome will also lose DH in the next release.
We certainly could not deploy this without the separate cipher suite
numbers. But I can't imagine Chrome deploying it with the separate cipher
suite numbers either for the same reason as Geoffrey. It does not seem
worth bothering when ECDHE is already widely deployed.