Re: [TLS] Quest for Unified Solution to TLS Renegotiation

[Michael D'Errico <[e-mail]>]

Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Michael D'Errico wrote:
>> The complaint I have about sending the verify_data over the wire is
>> that that alone does not plug the hole.  You need to take the extra
>> step to check that it's correct, and a maintenance programmer not
>> intimately familiar with TLS might miss this fact.
> 
> I don't find this argument very compelling. There are all sorts of
> ways to screw up your TLS implementation that are worse than this
> and are difficult/impossible to detect from the other side. E.g.,
> 
> - Weak randomness
> - Failure to check buffers leading to buffer overflows
> - Failure to check certs


My position is:  if we can avoid adding another one to this list,
then we should.

Mike



> TLS relies throughout on the assumption that the other side is
> implemented more or less correctly. If we can't count on that,
> we have bigger problems than this issue.
> 
> -Ekr