Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1)
Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Tue, 11 May 2010 22:02 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 61ADF3A6A88 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 15:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.450, BAYES_50=0.001]
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 HjHmOKG9zLjV for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D88D3A69DE for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2010 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1OBxWT-000MZV-OI; Tue, 11 May 2010 22:01:53 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9556A631D; Tue, 11 May 2010 22:01:52 +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+J5Z8+anPK/Vi9LLrYmLRv2Kx3k1U3pOg=
Message-ID: <4BE9D3D2.8070009@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:01:54 -0500
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100216 Thunderbird/3.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil>
References: <87bpcn4cy6.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <C80E5AA0.AB38%stefan@aaa-sec.com><87bpcm3m2w.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <4BE9A1BD.9010905@extendedsubset.com> <201005112120.o4BLKLRL016765@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil>
In-Reply-To: <201005112120.o4BLKLRL016765@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: id=1E36DBF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1)
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: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:02:08 -0000
On 5/11/2010 4:16 PM, Kemp, David P. wrote: > The security analysis should focus on the bizarre Finished message > calculation rather than on the hash algorithm. The essence of caching > is that cached data has the same effect as transmitted data, only faster > :-). Section 4 violates that assumption: > > "The handshake protocol will proceed using the cached data as if it > was provided in the handshake protocol. The Finished message will > however be calculated over the actual data exchanged in the handshake > protocol." It is definitely a mismatch, but I think it's the simplest and least inconsistent of the possible ways it could be defined. > If the Finished message is not calculated as if the data were actually > transmitted, then it cannot ensure the integrity of that data. Not as easily and directly, but it can if we can prove either: A. the values transmitted are perfect equivalents for the values used, or B. a mismatch (no matter how carefully engineered by the attacker) can not make a semantic difference to any reasonable application code other than what would result from an ordinary Finished verify failure. > Strike > the second sentence and the problem goes away. And you gain a harder one in return... > The transmitter has to > perform Finished calculations on the original datastream, then > post-process it to substitute hashes where possible. The receiver first > has to expand hashes into data, and then perform handshake operations > including Finished calculations. But these things happen at different layers of the protocol. The Finished messages are calculated on the handshake layer as carried by the record layer (IIRC this includes the HandshakeType and length bytes). Currently it can be implemented by keeping a running hash of the bytes without actually buffering them in memory. That code shouldn't need to change at all. Operations like iterating a list of TAs to find a client cert or validating a server cert are typically going to be performed at a higher layer in the code that probably already has similar function defined for processing those items. If you needed to calculate a Finished message by retroactively modifying the handshake data stream, it would be harder. You would have to do things like fix up length fields (potentially recursing up multiple layers). That would certainly make introducing new CachedInformationTypes more disruptive. It would also effectively require implementations to buffer everything until all substitutions were resolved. That's why I think the draft does it the best way. - Marsh
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Blumenthal, Uri - 0668 - MITLL
- [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Simon Josefsson
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Blumenthal, Uri - 0668 - MITLL
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Adam Langley
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Robert Dugal
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Jeffrey A. Williams
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Paul Hoffman
- [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1) Nicolas Williams
- [TLS] Nico's suggestions - Re: Consensus Call: FN… Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Blumenthal, Uri - 0668 - MITLL
- [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re: Co… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Simon Josefsson
- [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1) Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Simon Josefsson
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Hovav Shacham
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Simon Josefsson
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Simon Josefsson
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Kemp, David P.
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Blumenthal, Uri - 0668 - MITLL
- Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1 Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Kemp, David P.
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Kemp, David P.
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Collisions (Re: Nic… Kemp, David P.
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Collisions (Re: Nic… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Collisions (Re: Con… Kemp, David P.
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Collisions (Re: Con… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Consensus Call: FNV vs … Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Simon Josefsson
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Marsh Ray
- [TLS] Justification Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Justification Simon Josefsson
- Re: [TLS] Justification Adam Langley
- Re: [TLS] Justification Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Justification Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Justification Adam Langley
- Re: [TLS] Justification Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Justification Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Collisions (Re: Con… Kemp, David P.
- Re: [TLS] Justification Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Justification Adam Langley
- [TLS] Use HTTP (Re: Justification) Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Justification Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Justification Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Justification Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Justification Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Justification Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Justification Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Justification Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Justification Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Justification Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Justification Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Justification Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Justification Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Justification Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Justification Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Justification Dean Anderson
- [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Simon Josefsson
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Justification Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Justification Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Justification Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Ben Laurie
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Ben Laurie
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Martin Rex
- [TLS] Possible alternative to current cached info… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info (and PRF WTF) Kemp, David P.
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info (and PRF WTF) Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info (and PRF WTF) Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Kemp, David P.
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Ben Laurie
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Stefan Santesson
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info Nicolas Williams