Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10.txt

Peter Gutmann <> Wed, 03 June 2015 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD981B3616 for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 01:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b5rhCi815YOC for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 01:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B246F1B360E for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 01:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1433318858; x=1464854858; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ZZ6bnLHOyCLEapsgrZ+eU4UUDljqt9lts6fsdb3U2Vg=; b=Rl+zUBI1Cgldxak/RpSlo2yqzLTzx972Stn/olTsOiP2UGpzJ0chJgYL 3HlPKX89n/3vPpNPcZTtXfpGZsZFjwfCu5M4Ouv/o4niHGd901dOkt84i nzGMvbHZH05AjfJQcJbl40D1tLi7hN31XtxXEBuK24ZzWjCa47CnVTxia DhCKCa+4Ow6ejCXNJ8vB94lJfjAufIzyZypZydf/3UwA1oqddJ7PqUhDs URdrvQuPGdimmK1RiFIoBuZs8ABcdUUo0XPahYZsJV7CImDM720Al/+px yJ6wj9TINki7mcQxXE4sCvaIRiTEOFxRu+VuDfBNdCRDy0t6QvKMAstWi g==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.13,546,1427713200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="20499231"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 03 Jun 2015 20:07:37 +1200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:07:37 +1200
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: Tony Arcieri <>, Yuhong Bao <>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10.txt
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 08:07:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <m2lhg1b8us.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <> <BLU177-W17E87DB68F54CE64BDC44C3B40@phx.gbl> <> <BLU177-W1EA1B34A70F648FD8C139C3B40@phx.gbl>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73AB034F5Fuxcn10tdc05UoAa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Geoffrey Keating <>, TLS WG <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10.txt
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:07:44 -0000

Tony Arcieri <> writes:

>After this draft is actually implemented in all TLS servers everywhere,
>server operators can add Java-specific errata to their configuration to work
>around the fundamental problem that DHE is breaking Java TLS handshakes.

You've got that exactly reversed, it's not "DHE is breaking Java handshakes",
it's "(Sun/Oracle's) Java is breaking DHE handshakes".  Their Java's broken
handling of DLP key sizes has been a known problem for years (and years, and
years, and years).  First Sun and then Oracle have chosen to ignore the
problem despite repeated complaints by users over a long period of time.  It
is not the IETF's job to fix a particular vendor's broken, buggy code.

>I just want DHE to diediedie.

I just want Sun/Oracle Java's broken handling of this to diediedie.  Let's see
which one happens first.