Re: [TLS] relax certificate_list requirements - opinion call (was Re: [tls13-spec] relax certificate_list ordering requirements to match current practice (#169)) I wonder if anyone is reading the full subject line or does it just get truncated at some poi

[Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]>]

Dave Garrett <[e-mail]> writes:

>That said, your argument is basically just that it doesn't affect you so it's
>not worth dealing with. TLS is a general security protocol used on the Web,
>not just by your customers.

That was what I was going to reply to Martin's post with, "how many embedded
devices did you sample when you came to the conclusion that the problem was
negligible"?  I was only yesterday dealing with one, a PLC, that (a) returned
a handshake failure if you connected to it with a TLS version greater than
1.0, (b) sent out garbled (but arguably valid) DH parameters, (c) seemed to
order the certs in its chain at random (or at least it wasn't consistent over
multiple connections), and (d) had an invalid cert.  Their defence was that
other vendors had been successfully interoperating with them for years, and my
code was at fault.  However if your world consists only of IIS and Apache (and
presumably NetWeaver?) then it's easier to pretend that this stuff doesn't
happen.

Peter.