Re: [TLS] TLS Proxy Server Extension

David McGrew <> Fri, 29 July 2011 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5364B11E80B8 for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.803
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E+fsqSDI8T0F for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BDE11E8095 for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1685; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311978251; x=1313187851; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date: references; bh=pwmxsBfayqYoYjerMv07nGWL61ZMuhm5GQ+x9UVc6O4=; b=YCp6CZaeZA5iekNBEWe/NWY2rl6qsXt/e4WQiPiTx46jG48OOCcfpnjN bzxb5Qb0ZEgKYDEe6+mxYhGbWvmA65CcTVlY6fHWlhHhHltDZJI3cgdz6 06+QqIiaOrBSusCxl0P2c03+hAcJ5bVicibWfjvu1vaGWFIx8kfm663v9 s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,289,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="7938176"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2011 22:24:11 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6TMO9wM012491; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:24:10 GMT
Message-Id: <>
From: David McGrew <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:24:09 -0700
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS Proxy Server Extension
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:24:16 -0000

On Jul 29, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Martin Rex wrote:

> Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 20:17 +0200, Martin Rex wrote:
>>> Only for Web-Browser scenario can I personally see a very limited
>>> value that does not amount to 100% wiretapping.
>>> Are you aware of rfc2804 "IETF Policy on Wiretapping"?
>>> Standardizing MITM attacks on TLS-protected communication
>>> ("lawful intercept?") seems like an extremely bad idea to me.
>> This is not wiretapping as defined in that policy.

Right, it's clearly not wiretapping as per RFC 2804: "Wiretapping is  
what occurs when information passed across the Internet from one party  
to one or more other parties is delivered to a third party: 1. Without  
the sending party knowing about the third party ..."   The intent of  
the work we are discussing is to ensure that the client knows about  
the third party.

> I *STRONGLY* disagree.  That is very much about wiretapping and
> even goes far beyond that, because it not only reveals the content
> of the communication, it also allows the "TLS proxy" to arbitrarily
> manipulate the communication in a fashion that might be entirely
> concealed to the communication peers at the end.
> I am strongly opposed to have any document describing such proxies
> published as an RFC!

And yet you would favor a protocol that propagates decryption keys  
around the network?

We don't have a choice about whether or not TLS proxying will be done  
on the Internet; it is being done.  What we can choose is whether or  
not the IETF improves how it is being done.