Re: [TLS] TLS Provfiles (Was: Call for consensus to remove anonymous DH)

[Dave Garrett <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 02:21:05 pm Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 02:10:36PM -0400, Dave Garrett wrote:
> > > Yes.  I wouldn't recommend following this path to others; it's not
> > > easy and the return on that investment isn't all good.  The mess we
> > > were attempting to clean up with HTTP/2 was the state of TLS
> > > deployment on the web, not so much the spec itself.
> > 
> > The profiles idea feels like a way to justify having a crap profile in the mix.
> 
> I see no basis for that dismissive throw-away.

I do:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 03:29:08 am Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Somewhat off-topic, why does TLS not produce a few profiles. One can
> be "Opportunistic TLS Profile" with a compatible security posture and
> include ADH. Another can be a "Standard TLS Profile" and include
> things like export grade crypto, weak and wounder ciphers SSLv3, etc.
> Finally, there can be a "TLS Defensive profile" where you get mostly
> the strong the protocols and ciphers, HTTPS Pinning Overrides are not
> allowed so the adversary cannot break the secure channel by tricking a
> user, etc.

The suggestion that started this thread was to have a "Standard TLS Profile" that actually allowed EXPORT ciphers & SSL3. So yeah, this proposal feels like a suggestion to keep allowance of obsolete junk as the norm with "defensive" as a separate option, because that's what it specifically says.


Dave