Re: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-downgrade-scsv-03.txt> (TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade Attacks) to Proposed Standard

Bodo Moeller <> Mon, 12 January 2015 11:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD111A8AF6; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:52:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.938
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rUEPIPQwyogm; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11DE71A7003; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (mreue102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LdEdl-1XSByL0fGT-00iRjq; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:52:24 +0100
Received: by with SMTP id hs14so23606054lab.8; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:52:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id oi1mr35369027lbb.2.1421063543170; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:52:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:52:23 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Bodo Moeller <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b343106b1b204050c7323c6"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:CKeXB4OULY8aOjDTEU+9i3P0VZe+XPPwHHhnlaUJiuBS5PqkXN0 5cpF88PtxbJszikgptkSNDKzcmge4ZzonFMWCtKfslubpCuVwPNKmcUwYg2SVTsAc4pzDu1 JjvMiGYdBtxiPKhStZ73zUywdLy6kxdCzu+d6Tg1m1mzpzV40eNuO6HCfVGAn2AzZa1SmqT lRU7XRfFOMbCZkcbuuyQA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-downgrade-scsv-03.txt> (TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade Attacks) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:53:13 -0000

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <>:

> [...] However, if you think that
> this has to be on standards track, please provide at least some
> argumentation for it.

draft-ietf-tls-downgrade-scsv-03 mandates server-side behavior (in response
to certain Client Hello messages) that requires wide deployment to achieve
the desired effect, hence Standards Track seems appropriate and
Informational status would be insufficient.

I don't agree with your assessment that "Making this a proposed standard,
would imply that the flawed technique is into standards track."
does not say that clients should implement a downgrade dance, it merely
recommends sending a certain signal *if* they choose to do so.

Also note that the point that some clients may use downgraded retries for
compatibility with buggy servers *is* already acknowledged by Standards
Track RFCs, e.g. RFC 5246 Appendix E.1:  "Note: some server implementations
are known to implement version negotiation incorrectly. [...]
Interoperability with such buggy servers is a complex topic beyond the
scope of this document, and may require multiple connection attempts by the