IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Security review of TLS1.3 0-RTT

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 04 May 2017 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 DECC01294FA for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2017 18:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 31EDIWP0VO_E for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2017 18:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38D631294EE for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 May 2017 18:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v441RFRF004981; Thu, 4 May 2017 02:31:04 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=dKrxw8qwaP6NSXFuuuz9wMGOJ+2CLpYPRtZOwf28GZk=; b=ZPaAYOgUtlSr1u2Z+VP9IFSrCm++ZKKZOa7bBMHEXvxXgWYyxPlsXAfFFWxML4u7Tv7n saLIfnD8kE0UtysmbTbsDv5Bf9lUT+eiLnPnQVUgHC0lUwwDcRfyNq/s6TGsmRb3wJmz Vp16WEhxRew45IWE2f1tBjDP7kKxogk/Ay5nPoJpXUlDK3zyW/Y9ENK+UAnak7z4OqJg 6DONv0oLyOtwTbzYTblT4LkaHY7kesUn5Wcm14tEyJsKcc8OQQ7MbeJDfxWC1kGTm5fF nb6VTmHo2CSI1AjWCToyIryhssLiljSFiAATbrrUuFQiR4qjH8tJAXJIXGlbpOr4hAVe uw==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 ([96.6.114.87]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2a72my6nsj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 May 2017 02:31:04 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v441UpJF008270; Wed, 3 May 2017 21:31:03 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2a72mb39gg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 03 May 2017 21:31:03 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.101) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 3 May 2017 20:31:03 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.131]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.131]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 3 May 2017 20:31:03 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
CC: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Security review of TLS1.3 0-RTT
Thread-Index: AQHSw1NICDv1l4S8FUWU9Zh5nPuktKHiqKmAgAA6vACAAKqpgIAAJd0AgAABBgD//6+mgA==
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 01:31:02 +0000
Message-ID: <dc8bcbd9cec54d86bcf704929570bd9d@ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <CAAF6GDcKZj9F-eKAeVj0Uw4aX_EgQ4DuJczL4=fsaFyG9Yjcgw@mail.gmail.com> <cb518e35-c214-d11d-a068-c454b2e7ea6a@gmx.net> <CAAF6GDfQ+YXV4gvhBOOZKC=wtYhxQUy1_2_M+dgfbdL25pppiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUwTe627vY=hoLTRv1qmFQLf8ba64X8xHwYdtw7WYn5jw@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0c=Q94c=Bk-P=FEZOmR6v1odcKfoq3Q89qADjuv1KH4ysg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnURuESnxDsacYDQfmuv1vQx4oevj9Mm2_KHvmOCAmGUEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnURuESnxDsacYDQfmuv1vQx4oevj9Mm2_KHvmOCAmGUEg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.38.153]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-03_18:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705040023
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-03_18:, , 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=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705040022
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/MBh_xFlbqamFjLj8rLai84g9GW4>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Security review of TLS1.3 0-RTT
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 May 2017 01:31:11 -0000

> Let's get the fallacy out of the way.  TLS 1.3 provides protection against replay
> attacks, just not if you decide to use 0-RTT.
> 
> I realize that there is a real risk that this distinction will be lost on some, but I
> can fairly confidently say that it isn't lost on those who are considering its use
> in various protocols.

Well, for example, Chrome/boringSSL should arguably know better but are treating it all as one equivalent stream.

Is FF/NSS doing the same thing?

Why?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email