Re: [TLS] TLS Proxy Server Extension

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 2, 2011, at 3:13 AM, David McGrew wrote:

> 
> On Aug 1, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> 
>>> It seems like a major difference that we have is that you expect a
>>> "read only" solution to be viable, while I don't.  A read-only
>>> decryption proxy would be considerably easier to implement correctly.
>>> However, I have zero confidence that a read-only decryption proxy
>>> would not evolve into a read/write proxy, which would introduce very
>>> significant security problems.

Decryption-only through sharing of keys would not work. Some of the processing to be done cannot be done by a passive eavesdropper. For example, if you send me an MS-Word document to my gmail account, and I would like to download it, the way to check for malware is for the proxy to download the entire file, scan it for malware, and then forward it to my computer. A passive eavesdropper would finish collecting the file too late - by then I already have it. An active proxy is necessary.

>> 
>> Such an evolution would have the prerequisite of a client cooperating.
>> 
>> And your solution to not have pretty TLS loose virginity at some point
>> in the future, is to rape her right away, i.e. start with an
>> almighty TLS proxy?
>> 
>> 
>> -Martin
> 
> Those are colorful metaphors.  I assume that if you are willing to  
> deploy such rhetorical excess, you do not actually understand what is  
> being proposed.

I think he's missing the baseline. The baseline is that TLS proxies work well enough that companies deploy then. Even in Europe. There are some downsides to using them: client certificates and PSK suites don't work. Certificate and CA pinning don't work. The user cannot verify the actual server certificate chain. The EV indication is gone. But all these are not blocking administrators from deploying TLS proxies. They may be blocking sites from using client certificates or PSK suites, although there are plenty of other things blocking those (but that's from another thread)

This extension may help with those deficiencies. With or without the extension, the existence (or possibility) of the proxy is visible to the user, because you need to install a CA certificate. A user can choose not to use the corporate network for accessing HTTPS sites where he's not comfortable with having the content inspected. The fact that the server is not similarly given a choice may be a problem, but that is a property of using TLS without client authentication. The extension can help, but only if the proxy uses it.

Yoav