Re: [TLS] Broken browser behaviour with SCADA TLS

Peter Gutmann <> Sat, 07 July 2018 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B67130DE0 for <>; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z1ubMq-iIDl5 for <>; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 240BC130DDB for <>; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1530927301; x=1562463301; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/IBtecWXCWMy/VfTgWuDaxYY/YhvsyVFduCmoASpV8c=; b=P/5+CTTacd2DFV39mTJDj55SsJHc1CIXbUyAOS2oY9ahNcvWF0Lsh0s1 HgrkRsKDbzQHcHANuE0rCJY20IzR7MjWLe13rp5IAhT8HnmGM41R1zHJE KqlSVRZQHxaZbuZXjQETV5Q2ZGe+ovVbZPCVw9/3rGioFAJY/68myxM8d 9JGfIpvwRa0xWJFVWGa5Ic39JE7hpBfU9OiNCHyaVMzXOkpvBBhY/Gne7 BDywaUGQr/dzyWyssxTfQgJCRUj4chcZFEkxL4lVyWBmHObdfs5TGWsaQ uuSv/0AZ6Xx1OPR5W8DKu94rDNMcJlyUpMTY++IQaw2eb51FNegbly3TN w==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,318,1526299200"; d="scan'208";a="20010470"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 07 Jul 2018 13:34:54 +1200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 13:34:53 +1200
Received: from ([fe80::ccab:7bf5:3d4a:aed8]) by ([fe80::ccab:7bf5:3d4a:aed8%14]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 13:34:53 +1200
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: "" <>
CC: Kurt Roeckx <>, Hubert Kario <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Broken browser behaviour with SCADA TLS
Thread-Index: AQHUE2JmEGgXYKCP9EqF19k6tdX1YKR92r8AgADQEJ///2EpAIAAJ+eAgAGuV0eAAkE7gIAA2umH
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 01:34:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Broken browser behaviour with SCADA TLS
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 01:35:04 -0000

Martin Rex <> writes:

>I would expect that someone who cares about backwards compatibility would
>test stuff at least once before shipping.

It's not just their TLS code that does things like this.  The Server 2003 SCEP
implementation, when sent a standard SCEP GetCACaps message, would immediately
drop the connection (which at least let you know what server you were talking
to, so it was a sort-of GetCACaps at least).  The Server 2012 SCEP
implementation will respond to a PKCS #1-wrapped (as per the spec) AES-
encrypted SCEP client request with an OAEP-wrapped (completely incorrect)
single-DES-encrypted response.

I cannot even begin to imagine what sort of coding would produce that level of
breakage.  This must have been tested on exactly zero implementations before
it shipped.

>Windows 2008R2 and later looks like entirely untested to me or maybe "tested
>only with MSIE and only in default config"

For SCADA stuff it's only the client side that matters (browsers being used to
admin devices), so I haven't looked at server-side breakage that much.  Even
then, note the comments in my first message about the bizarro fallback dance +
eventual fail to connect that IE goes through.

In any case thanks for posting that list, it's good to have for reference.  I
suspect at least some of that behaviour may be due to the destructive
interaction of too many backwards-compatibility hacks...