Re: [TLS] Malformed Finished handling

"Salz, Rich" <> Wed, 04 July 2018 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C74C5130FB7 for <>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 06:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.711
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 1gHGCFG67x7P for <>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 06:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FF84130FCE for <>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 06:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id w64DhLMo004396; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:46:06 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=cio7n2Qbh4Vk3WK5UjXoLrMe1FZv+KUlBwG3ke+uSng=; b=CMbOqLFCA/JO99IL52nBUczGBX/jaT68nW9n2Ul5up3F7QRJebQm9IXQws/jqzPo6nET S09B7S1AoddR2DHYMs9TWfxiB0R11vQRFXc/X73DilvFngNz38CE+g0cATUHZ+T3xODf ekZGPaTyfzbsW+BsKX9dHM8gVAsFssDwR9YwX5ARXQsnXv/l0UDv+xBqOc7/IMOplMHC Riuza9a1/H71YBPMA/v/ClV3TslOC7ExC1BX7AuvnR0zwbsXbax4WoX9+m1E/3M9XbRK 2cu/KYKJ6pFFFQsa1deQO1pxxpjPp1l668SvRkuXTDK+xsCR/n8QsNg47e2HlhUIFPmK Iw==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint3 ( [] (may be forged)) by with ESMTP id 2k0vcsrctm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 04 Jul 2018 14:46:06 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id w64DZH1m023039; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:46:06 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 2jx57bdjne-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 04 Jul 2018 09:46:05 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 08:46:05 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1365.000; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 08:46:05 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <>
To: Hubert Kario <>, Eric Rescorla <>
CC: "<>" <>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Malformed Finished handling
Thread-Index: AQHUE30KwjXcmqvy7UW082bZ8x4YGqR/WsEAgAAKEYD//7+rAA==
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 13:46:04 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.e.1.180613
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-07-04_04:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=838 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1807040157
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-07-04_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=755 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1807040158
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Malformed Finished handling
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:46:33 -0000

>    if the interpretation of "I know this _message_ _length_ is wrong because of 
    some other values I negotiated before, so I'll send illegal_parameter" was 
    correct, then overflow_error, decrypt_error and probably few others would also 
    need to be replaced with illegal_parameter...
I think the rigorousness of error codes is not at the same level as the rest of the document.  I'm fine with that.  I can understand why people developing test suites are frustrated. To me, it's like people arguing about whether the "list of errno values" in a syscall manpage must be completely comprehensive or not.  Old-timers might remember when djb used to rail against the fact that close(2) could set errno to ENOSPACE when using AFS.

The WG spans a wide variety of views on errors and alerts. Some want to have only one, "bad packet," alert. Some want to add a textual explanation option.  Woolgathering aside, I think the first sentence I wrote is 100% accurate.