Re: [TLS] Keeping TLS extension points working

Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com> Tue, 02 August 2016 13:47 UTC

Return-Path: <svaldez@google.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 AD2BA12D600 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 06:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 CzbF1qVC_Fxs for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 06:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1F5D12D5D5 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 06:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id z8so198325925ywa.1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 06:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6zH7BP5xFizVRVxmDo6IjnY1+3gv7E6594LH1qrptAg=; b=kLVSAfuV7W6tZaOfWzLkyEXIYxNiUBWeuTytK24SfZn0CZvyQL7HeeuTftBpdyzLep fBTJzIhJVinNmTM6YDq7jisObeqWXO7zhfkkp1MvbN3HfHEwaF8ysg2YRNHa8Dk+HUKR xWH421U7lESe0RgYvdoPLPL0pwOzqXcy4xj4zcG9N/+WOjru+Y0rifyUsC9OgOeavyZ2 xmqh7+gMPMx9abobEn/12lUKhn2VZkkDPESE6Rfm8tXOqdJTZ0YTnXa1MX3UjkJrY1vn rK88VXMBXCqwR8mEwID/hvXZM2XZsGRo3jARQcGmyngVAApTP43SuIbuDis9jX7ODg9Y 29+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=6zH7BP5xFizVRVxmDo6IjnY1+3gv7E6594LH1qrptAg=; b=li1ceqL2txrqIt8OECg/XYYL7LSVV2BU2DVz5TDq757hPi6z5WBOUAM0YMzLh673me yBfz5L59a81sK/xaayhLz9Qnesx0jBLdCbfwxOUmrDdP7Inhi3n0xdHl3PgM4PpPSDTT SD23HRY/0vlYx+QkOQxHrcRSqSxtEOnU79hxOL2s1Fzk9idKYqzibje0cxetusMOVRGC OjscTQqKKes8/kn+dDlm5fSN96G5SQmU+RUMHX4h+p5/iSvdGJbhOiU3eTjZffv9MqFA ZcmyI2SE9/rcjW1HKa45DGEjv9DR5gdQ7ViRoJwOIoIwuLDnEsZrh4BGtXOSZ84xmZrk 4b9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousmmf17QkwQif2rRbxFm3/YxO0+ZpijTg6jcWMvHsKxDqOzLH8lngLIwD7jEFlW2a+TIpXqUm+hRjd0ywkO
X-Received: by 10.37.199.83 with SMTP id w80mr30562160ybe.93.1470145640776; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 06:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF8qwaCaW2Q+z_JoDqzQZaGCWJ2aqUiyK8_J8_CO4Ck_cqtaSA@mail.gmail.com> <FDFEA8C9B9B6BD4685DCC959079C81F5E18BF559@blreml502-mbx>
In-Reply-To: <FDFEA8C9B9B6BD4685DCC959079C81F5E18BF559@blreml502-mbx>
From: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:47:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CANduzxBqLsvsybwCqR_zC-tpSQ2P1mTz8waZw0Y-im-X0-p0Lw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Raja ashok <raja.ashok@huawei.com>, David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=94eb2c14806ab08354053916f4fd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/PqI3M5PJLeI6CPjuOffx_zNecJM>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Keeping TLS extension points working
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:47:25 -0000

a) It seems like if an implementation has updated to be able to handle a
specific GREASE alert, it should be able to handle not sending an invalid
cipher suite. In general, its probably cleaner for the connection to
fatally shutdown and then restart if the server is behaving that poorly.
Servers that are sending back non-existent ciphers are also potentially
broken in other ways, and I don't know whether a client should trust that
it can reset any handshake state correctly if it were to try doing a
"warning" alert.

b) The reasoning behind having an explicit list is so that implementations
don't send a value that ends up being defined as some other valid value.
Otherwise its possible that some implementations will update to include
GREASE values, but they might not update immediately upon new values being
assigned by IANA, which means that there will be periods of times that some
clients might send "fake" values that collide with real values, confusing
the peer implementation into believing they actually support something that
they don't and resulting in more intolerance issues between outdated GREASE
clients and newly updated servers, with this intolerance being firmly the
GREASE clients fault. The hardcoded list gets around this by making sure
GREASE never overlaps with an actual value, though at the trade-off that
badly designed implementations could choose to just hard-code ignore the
GREASE codepoints.

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:59 AM Raja ashok <raja.ashok@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Benjamin,
>
>
>
> I have gone through the GREASE mechanism which you proposed in your new
> draft. It’s really a nice idea for finding a buggy server before it thrives.
>
>
>
> I am having few doubts on this, which are listed below.
>
> a)      What should be the behaviour of client incase if a buggy server
> responded for a GREASE value ?
>
> -          Consider a client sends a GREASE cipher value at first place
> and followed by valid cipher suites, in its client hello.
>
> -          If a buggy server selects that cipher then it will response
> server hello with that GREASE cipher value. At this case if client sends
> FATAL alert then both side TLS and TCP needs to be closed and client needs
> to recreate a new TCP connection, and then restart TLS handshake without
> GREASE cipher value.
>
> -          Instead of this we can make client to send warning alert (with
> new TLS alert code GREASE_CIPHER_VALUE_SELECTED(111)) and restart TLS
> handshake by sending client hello again.
>
> -          If a server receives this new warning, then it should be ready
> to receive new client hello to restart handshake.
>
>
>
> SERVER
>                                 CLIENT
>
> CH (GREASE Cipher value & Valid Cipher value)          ------>
>
>
> <-------                  SH (GREASE cipher value)
>
> Fatal alert                    -------->
>
> TCP (SYN)                    -------->
>
>
>                                                 <--------
> TCP(SYN ACK)
>
> TCP (ACK)                    -------->
>
> CH (Valid cipher
> value)                                                          ------->
>
>                         Scenario 1 : Sending FATAL alert for server
> selecting GREASE value
>
>
>
> SERVER
>                                 CLIENT
>
> CH (GREASE Cipher value & Valid Cipher value)          ------->
>
>
> <-------                  SH (GREASE cipher value)
>
> Warning alert             -------->
>
> CH (Valid cipher
> value)                                                          ------->
>
>                         Scenario 2 : Sending WARNING alert for server
> selecting GREASE value
>
>
>
> -          I hope sending warning msg and restarting TLS handshake will
> be efficient.
>
> -          TLS Server must notify the application, whenever it receives a
> GREASE warning alert.
>
>
>
> b)      Why only few values are specified as GREASE value ? Basically all
> value which are not specified by IANA should be considered as GREASE value
> right ?
>
> -          Basically client should maintain the list of values (cipher
> suite, extensions) specified by IANA. The range of values.
>
> -          For example IANA specified cipher suite values are
> {{0x0000,0x005C}, {0x0060,0x006D}, {0x0084, 0x00C5}, {0x00FF, 0x00FF} …..
> }. This should be maintained in client.
>
> -          We should make the client to choose a random value which are
> not in this supported value list. That cipher value should be considered as
> GREASE value and need to keep in first place of its cipher list.
>
> -          If its selected by a buggy server, then client should behave
> as mentioned in above scenario 2.
>
> -          Even in future if IANA provides new values to new cipher, then
> this list also should be updated. Consider in this case server is
> supporting that new cipher and client is not aware about it, so client can
> propose that value as GREASE value, then still connection will work with
> the 2nd handshake.
>
> -          I am not understanding why we are planning to maintain a few
> set of GREASE values {0x0A0A, 0x1A1A …. }. If I am missing something,
> please clarify me.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> R Ashok
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Raja Ashok VK
> 华为技术有限公司 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
> [image: Company_logo]
>
> Phone:
> Fax:
> Mobile:
> Email:
> Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
> Bangalore, India
>
> http://www.huawei.com
> ------------------------------
>
> 本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁
> 止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发)本邮件中
> 的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件!
> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
> HUAWEI, which
> is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above.
> Any use of the
> information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
> total or partial
> disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
> intended
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> notify the sender by
> phone or email immediately and delete it!
>
> *From:* TLS [mailto:tls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *David Benjamin
> *Sent:* 26 July 2016 04:02
> *To:* tls@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [TLS] Keeping TLS extension points working
>
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
>
> I'm not sure how this process usually works, but I would like to reserve a
> bunch of values in the TLS registries to as part of an idea to keep our
> extension points working. Here's an I-D:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davidben-tls-grease-00
>
>
>
> (The name GREASE is in honor of AGL's rusted vs. well-oiled joints analogy
> from https://www.imperialviolet.org/2016/05/16/agility.html )
>
>
>
> One problem we repeatedly run into is servers failing to implement TLS's
> various extension points correctly. The most obvious being version
> intolerance. When we deployed X25519 in Chrome, we discovered an intolerant
> implementation. (Thankfully it was rare enough to not warrant a fallback or
> revert!) It appears that signature algorithms maybe also be gathering rust.
> Ciphers and extensions seem to have held up, but I would like to ensure
> they stay that way.
>
>
>
> The root problem here is these broken servers interoperate fine with
> clients at the time they are deployed. It is only after new values get
> defined do we notice, by which time it is too late.
>
>
>
> I would like to fix this by reserving a few values in our registries so
> that clients may advertise random ones and regularly exercise these
> codepaths in servers. If enough of the client base does this, we can turn a
> large class of tomorrow's interop failures into today's interop failures.
> This is important because an bug will not thrive in the ecosystem if it
> does not work against the current deployment.
>
>
>
> If you were in Berlin, you may recognize this idea from the version
> negotiation debate. Alas that all happened in the wrong order as I hadn't
> written this up yet. This idea can't be applied to versioning without
> giving up on ClientHello.version, but we can start with the rest of the
> protocol.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> PS: This is actually my first I-D, so apologies if I've messed it up
> somewhere!
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>