IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Next protocol negotiation

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Thu, 21 January 2010 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.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 ADBBD3A6888 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:07:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 Z3oOOAfha1zS for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:07:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dlpdemo.checkpoint.com (dlpdemo.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82FB23A6882 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:07:44 -0800 (PST)
X-CheckPoint: {4B5808DC-10003-14201DC2-FFFF}
Received: by dlpdemo.checkpoint.com (Postfix, from userid 105) id 3331E29C005; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:07:40 +0200 (IST)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (michael.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.68]) by dlpdemo.checkpoint.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD4029C002; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:07:40 +0200 (IST)
X-CheckPoint: {4B5808DC-10000-14201DC2-FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o0L87dT7029292; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:07:39 +0200 (IST)
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:07:53 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:07:31 +0200
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Next protocol negotiation
Thread-Index: AcqacNU7cOoSD7AiT126FqTLdcb3Mg==
Message-ID: <DFA6B810-F1BF-4113-8615-3DBD9875790A@checkpoint.com>
References: <a84d7bc61001200520t4e3be7d4sb0bb614abb0b5e4e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a84d7bc61001200520t4e3be7d4sb0bb614abb0b5e4e@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Next protocol negotiation
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:07:45 -0000

On Jan 20, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Adam Langley wrote:
> 
> Excluding users that couldn't even do basic a HTTP transaction over
> the transport layer (6.37%, 10.15% and 7.91%, respectively), the
> success rates are:
>    HTTP (port 80)      67%
>    HTTP (port 61985)   86%
>    HTTPS (port 443)    95%
> 
> This results in overall sucess rates of 63%, 77% and 87%, respectively.

That HTTPS number is very surprising. It suggests that 5% of Chrome users can do regular HTTPS, but not WebSockets over HTTPS?

Are SSL-inspecting proxies that prevalent?

Maybe this suggests that Chrome's bias is FOR tightly-controlled environments rather than AGAINST.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email