Re: [TLS] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-11.txt

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:51:12PM -0400, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:

> 	Title		: The TLS Protocol Version 1.1
> 	Author(s)	: T. Dierks, E. Rescorla
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-11.txt
> 	Pages		: 90
> 	Date		: 2005-5-18

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-11.txt

This new ID does not yet correct the inconsistencies for some field
and type names pointed out in
<URL:http://www.imc.org/ietf-tls/mail-archive/msg04525.html>,
reproduced below.

But first, here's a new comment:

7.4.7.1. RSA encrypted premaster secret message

       [...]                                         In practice, since
       there are no significant known security differences between TLS
       and SSLv3, rollback to SSLv3 is not believed to be a serious
       security risk.

Discussing "security differences between TLS and SSLv3" is a little
odd because this sounds like comparing two protocol versions.  But in
fact this specification defines TLS 1.1, so there are three protocol
versions to take into account.  And there are security differences
both between SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 *and* between TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1:
TLS 1.1 uses explicit IVs for CBC encryption to avoid deficiencies
present in both earlier versions; SSL 3.0 has additional weaknesses
due to its failure to completely specify block cipher padding
(as I pointed out in
http://www.imc.org/ietf-tls/mail-archive/msg03983.html).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Section 7.4.3 defines

       struct {
           opaque rsa_modulus<1..2^16-1>;
           opaque rsa_exponent<1..2^16-1>;
       } ServerRSAParams;

       struct {
           opaque dh_p<1..2^16-1>;
           opaque dh_g<1..2^16-1>;
           opaque dh_Ys<1..2^16-1>;
       } ServerDHParams;     /* Ephemeral DH parameters */

but Appendix A.4.2 has capitalized versions of the names.

    struct {
        opaque RSA_modulus<1..2^16-1>;
        opaque RSA_exponent<1..2^16-1>;
    } ServerRSAParams;

    struct {
        opaque DH_p<1..2^16-1>;
        opaque DH_g<1..2^16-1>;
        opaque DH_Ys<1..2^16-1>;
    } ServerDHParams;

Generally, the principle appears to be that field names should be
[mostly] lower-case, with capital letters reserved for type names,
so it's A.4.2 that should be changed.

And in A.4.3, the type definition for ClientKeyExchange refers to a
"DiffieHellmanClientPublicValue" type.  But this should actually
be "ClientDiffieHellmanPublic".
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls