IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Next Protocol Negotiation 03

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9943A21F87D5 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.154
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.445, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJ27AkFby9xn for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DC121F87D3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1SN4mx-0006aF-Iw; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:09:55 +0000
Received: from [172.16.2.4] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E816081; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:09:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18TaoepDTLWHBYUHAf0+gaJHcf7xxbx86Y=
Message-ID: <4F9821D0.5050805@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:09:52 -0500
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@gnutls.org>
References: <CAL9PXLy31VzxLidgOy64MnDAyRE=HU=hxyBXW1rgB+Xnd0vKjA@mail.gmail.com> <4F981528.9010903@gnutls.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F981528.9010903@gnutls.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Next Protocol Negotiation 03
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:09:56 -0000

On 04/25/2012 10:15 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>
> Say that B is TOR. Wouldn't a middleware terminate the connection anyway
> if the server supports tor? So that complication doesn't
> really buy privacy or protection against middlewares.

Tor is actively engaged in a fascinating tit-for-tat contest with 
protocol censors. In fact, they are developing methods precisely to make 
it impractical for unauthorized middleboxen to actually determine "if 
the server supports Tor".

It's an evolving situation and I expect it will continue to evolve 
faster than, say, IETF protocols. :-) So I don't think it's a useful 
indicator of the effectiveness of any proposed TLS protocol features.

- Marsh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email