IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-downgrade-scsv-03.txt> (TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade Attacks) to Proposed Standard

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Sat, 10 January 2015 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FBC71A1A09; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:54:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hDHO4GUynDjP; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay07.akamai.com (prod-mail-xrelay07.akamai.com [72.246.2.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E233B1A0396; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay07.akamai.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5268476AF; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:54:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from prod-mail-relay06.akamai.com (prod-mail-relay06.akamai.com [172.17.120.126]) by prod-mail-xrelay07.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C9D476AE; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:54:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com (unknown [172.27.123.34]) by prod-mail-relay06.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B402026; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:54:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from usma1ex-cashub5.kendall.corp.akamai.com (172.27.105.21) by usma1ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.913.22; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:54:10 -0500
Received: from USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.107.26]) by USMA1EX-CASHUB5.kendall.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.105.21]) with mapi; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:54:10 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@redhat.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:54:09 -0500
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-downgrade-scsv-03.txt> (TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade Attacks) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AdAtF5RqPhs7A1ZuQfugN43Qg9JVbQ==
Message-ID: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C71D55675E29@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <20150109180539.22231.7270.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <285245260.5608886.1420918276899.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <285245260.5608886.1420918276899.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/K9DSZxpFf_2IhZexDUZrr-TQ4lo>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-downgrade-scsv-03.txt> (TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade Attacks) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:54:37 -0000

> The mechanism it fixes (the browser's special downgrade of TLS) is not an
> IETF protocol, nor related to the TLS WG. Making this a proposed standard,
> would imply that the flawed technique is into standards track. I believe that
> this text should be informational.

I disagree.  Just because it addresses one common behavior, defining semantics for a client to say "I tried better, this is what I have now" and the related server semantics is a very good thing.  It keeps the  client/server interaction stateless (well on the server side) across multiple connections.

--  
Principal Security Engineer, Akamai Technologies
IM: rsalz@jabber.me Twitter: RichSalz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email