Re: [TLS] CCS and key reset and renegotiation

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 05 June 2014 15:41 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 82A241A01A0 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 dVNoYMrVS38l for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay08.akamai.com (prod-mail-xrelay08.akamai.com [96.6.114.112]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FB61A019C for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay08.akamai.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0309F48252; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:41:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from prod-mail-relay08.akamai.com (prod-mail-relay08.akamai.com [172.27.22.71]) by prod-mail-xrelay08.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1DF48251; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:41:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from usma1ex-cashub.kendall.corp.akamai.com (usma1ex-cashub5.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.27.105.21]) by prod-mail-relay08.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C849A98052; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:41:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.107.26]) by USMA1EX-CASHUB5.kendall.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.105.21]) with mapi; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 11:41:29 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 11:41:28 -0400
Thread-Topic: [TLS] CCS and key reset and renegotiation
Thread-Index: Ac+A0mTB0/YpgdS/S6+hIQK2VdgFkAAAaXrw
Message-ID: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C7130F4349C2@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C7130F434981@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CACsn0c=O5Xp82JqsxXsik+4NEG5h-0HSJ-NM1zhywJVg_oX1Dg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0c=O5Xp82JqsxXsik+4NEG5h-0HSJ-NM1zhywJVg_oX1Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C7130F4349C2USMBX1msgcorp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/LclkT9pTeNqx-GsstLHiRIcNwuI
Cc: "TLS@ietf.org \(tls@ietf.org\)" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] CCS and key reset and renegotiation
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: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:41:38 -0000

> I don't see why the incompetence of implementors should govern our decisions. If something cannot be implemented correctly it must be removed,  but why is rekeying such a thing?

Because the line between “often get it wrong” and “cannot be implemented” is often a very thin one and it’s better to be cautious and safe, then pedantically correct and usually broken.

/r$

--
Principal Security Engineer
Akamai Technologies, Cambridge, MA
IM: rsalz@jabber.me<mailto:rsalz@jabber.me>; Twitter: RichSalz