IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8446 (5874)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 12 October 2019 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 E41B912081B for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wfg0Acjx5Ywd for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38F8F120815 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id A9B79B801A8; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: ekr@rtfm.com, rdd@cert.org, kaduk@mit.edu, caw@heapingbits.net, joe@salowey.net, sean+ietf@sn3rd.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: lperrin@bellaliant.net, tls@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20191012042149.A9B79B801A8@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:21:49 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/TlVKaFM_Zm1AvLTqH02HCP0tv9o>
Subject: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8446 (5874)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 04:22:02 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8446,
"The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5874

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Mr Laurie Perrin <lperrin@bellaliant.net>

Section: 5.1

Original Text
-------------
...

   Application Data messages contain data that is opaque to TLS.
   Application Data messages are always protected.  Zero-length
   fragments of Application Data MAY be sent, as they are potentially
   useful as a traffic analysis countermeasure.  Application Data
   fragments MAY be split across multiple records or coalesced into a
   single record.

Corrected Text
--------------
...

   Application Data messages contain data that is opaque to TLS.
   Application Data messages are always protected.  Zero-length
   fragments of Application Data (i.e. those encapsulating an
   TLSInnerPlaintext record having a content field of length zero)
   MAY be sent, as they are potentially useful as a traffic analysis
   countermeasure. Application Data fragments MAY be split across
   multiple records or coalesced into a single record.

Notes
-----
In the interest of clarity, it may be prudent to specify the type of record for
which a fragment of length zero is being considered - it cannot be that of the
TLSCiphertext itself, for "Application Data messages are always protected,"
therefore I infer this relates to the TLSInnerPlaintext content field (of
length "TLSPlaintext.length") - i.e. to the TLSPlaintext fragment.

Note: This comment also applies to previous versions of the TLS specification,
in particular with the introduction of the respective text concerning zero-length
fragments in RFC 5246. In TLS 1.2, this would be the GenericXXCipher content
field of length "TLSCompressed.length" - i.e. to the TLSCompressed fragment.

Note: The implications of zero-length records must be considered with respect to
potential vectors for denial of service.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC8446 (draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3
Publication Date    : August 2018
Author(s)           : E. Rescorla
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Transport Layer Security
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email