Re: [TLS] Forged RST (was: About encrypting SNI)

[Bill Frantz <[e-mail]>]

On 4/19/14 at 9:33 AM, [e-mail] (Yoav Nir) wrote:

>>However, one could set up a DTLS session and then initialize the TCP protocol within that session.
>
>You mean a security layer between the IP layer and the 
>transport layer?
>>I don't think anyone has considered this inversion before. It may not be useful, but…
>
>Except people who have implemented IPsec in transport mode. For 
>compatibility with NAT, it can use UDP with port 4500.

Indeed IPsec is proof that it can work.


>Really, the only advantage of DTLS over IPsec is that the TLS 
>handshake is easier to deploy than IPsec’s key exchange 
>(IKE), because IKE demands mutual authentication, and deploying 
>client credentials is so hard, some people would like us to 
>remove it entirely from TLS 1.3.
>
>What would work nicely (and some vendors have products that do 
>this already) is initiating IPsec in a client/server model, 
>where the client receives the details of the IPsec SA from the 
>server. That transaction could run over UDP or even over 
>HTTPS.  Of course, I think this is the wrong mailing list to 
>discuss a suggestion like this.

If we can get IPsec to be practical for the TLS use cases, we 
can all go home. :-)

One of the disadvantages of putting TCP on top of the encrypted 
layer is that when a packet is resent it is re-encrypted. My 
crypto-plumber reflexes say that re-encryption can be dangerous 
with certain systems, but I can't remember the details. 
Apparently IPsec has avoided this problem.

Cheers - Bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | Truth and love must prevail  | Periwinkle
[phone]      | over lies and hate.          | 16345 
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com |               - Vaclav Havel | Los Gatos, 
CA 95032