IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] assert TLSext in renego-ServerHello instead of disable renego

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Fri, 13 November 2009 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB533A69AB for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:14:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aMrcomdu-lyT for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DF03A6894 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1N8ynq-0006Y3-B0 for tls@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:15:14 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3236678 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:15:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/bvk2f2A/Q+Ve02AK2TUMC5VwztAIsz1c=
Message-ID: <4AFD860F.8060007@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:15:11 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <200911092035.nA9KZviE026489@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <4AF8EF8F.3090100@jacaranda.org> <4AF8F7B4.7020101@pobox.com> <4AF8FDBD.4080003@jacaranda.org> <4AF9070E.4050305@jacaranda.org> <4AF99E04.3060604@pobox.com> <20091112055910.58D2369EF16@kilo.networkresonance.com> <4AFC46D8.9050905@pobox.com> <20091113060004.55DC569F31E@kilo.networkresonance.com> <4AFD850C.7010704@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AFD850C.7010704@pobox.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=1E36DBF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [TLS] assert TLSext in renego-ServerHello instead of disable renego
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:14:46 -0000

Michael D'Errico wrote:
> But there have been messages suggesting that a client doesn't need to
> send it on its initial connection, only when renegotiating.  I've
> been trying to convince them that the client must send it especially
> in its first handshake in order to avoid being attacked.

Yes, that's the basis of the main attack: the client doesn't realize
that he's renegotiating.

- Marsh

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status