Re: [TLS] History of TLS analysis (was Re: TLS 1.2 Long-term Support Profile draft posted)

Peter Gutmann <> Fri, 18 March 2016 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FED12D557 for <>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 SjmCjfN0aqdJ for <>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3553312D884 for <>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1458343888; x=1489879888; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/wK8vvAYZSghYr0oVXJzHqdGUhJfsEv/Bjjlh7ykUp4=; b=k3Ht7mF43GcJ/HIiYNjm3flfdmFVvfpwRhxoPMYEgH1yc8khmE/mbaRX KWvnUI0fx9mbBnIFt3Z5LGhOgUmv2ZLlGnv8Rnz0Ja5sb7+jTNqJLm4hE NfEF9yS1AQxSzCaQ5FsdfiOhZV+VavpgkmWZGo1UIGkqS/UMLBNzsdFwG VccXNxxiXR2FeQ8tKpYsX72ubjJQr3WFBAEIlxw/Hag/ksfbwHZnikEOT 4HfjfmPd7ScJrcWdHWpQ1e25pvZwGbMBmnwd4qQukHrvpaMmA87/2Kc+o BPvGRNHbjTDbLqm/XwmRqFHDJ1CJpb5e2/kFmWueidJidp9BS2puzg1/S Q==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,357,1454929200"; d="scan'208";a="75143985"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 19 Mar 2016 12:31:26 +1300
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:31:25 +1300
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: Watson Ladd <>
Thread-Topic: History of TLS analysis (was Re: [TLS] TLS 1.2 Long-term Support Profile draft posted)
Thread-Index: AQHRgSPsNtKHnKFH4U2s3fp8fjKVEJ9f2c6k
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 23:31:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] History of TLS analysis (was Re: TLS 1.2 Long-term Support Profile draft posted)
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, 18 Mar 2016 23:31:32 -0000

Watson Ladd <> writes:

>Then use a padding extension that solves all problems, instead of relying on
>a side effect of CBC mode. 

It's not a "side-effect of CBC mode", CBC mode allows padding packets, GCM
doesn't, see Colm MacCárthaigh's recent post on the topic.

>Why do we want this to look different from TLS, instead of a subset of widely
>deployed things ala UTA?

CBC mode ciphers have been part of TLS since SSL 2.0 (AFAIK) in 1994, I don't
know if SSL2 allowed for packet padding but 3.0 certainly did, so it's hardly
a major change.

>What is your master secret change solving?

Preventing manipulation of DH/ECDH parameters.

>Your draft claims that verifying signatures before sending will address an
>ECC security threat. I don't see what threat that addresses

The fact that ECC algorithms are extremely vulnerable to fault attacks, and a
single faulty signature can leak the private key, at which point its game

I don't really know how to say the following without it sounding like an ad
hominem attack, but how much do you really know about real-world deployment
issues for this stuff?  You seem to be arguing for all sorts of personal
preferences based on, I dunno, abstract theorising, but you appear to be
totally unaware of actual real-world issues.  What I'm trying to figure out
is, how seriously am I supposed to take your comments?  Do you actually have
any real-world deployment experience with using this stuff in the field?