Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3 (Martin Rex) Wed, 28 September 2016 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271D612B26B for <>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 06:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.922
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ATS5H5eCljfT for <>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 06:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2C8412B262 for <>; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 06:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3skdpm3mWdz1HN8; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:29:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-purgate-ID: 152705::1475069376-00003836-F0A4BAC7/0/0
X-purgate-size: 1362
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit for further information)
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R)
X-purgate-type: clean
X-SAP-SPAM-Status: clean
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3skdpl63LdzksQk; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:29:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10159) id C46711A558; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:29:35 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:29:35 +0200
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL125 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:29:41 -0000

Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 28/09/16 01:17, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> > People with audit authority can then know all of the secrets,
> How well does that whole audit thing work in the financial services
> industry?  (Sorry, couldn't resist:-)

I am actually having serious doubts that it works at all.

Consider a scenario that uses TLSv1.2 with static-RSA key exchange,
plain old session caching and Microsoft style renego-client-cert-auth
on a subset of the urlspace.

(1) first TLS session, full handshake, request to public area.

(2) TLS session resume, request to non-public area -> renego

(3) TLS session resume for renego'ed session to non-public area.

To obtain the cleartext of session (3), you'll need the master secret
of the renego'ed session from (2), for which you'll first have to locate
and decrypt (2), for which you need the master secret from (1), so you'll
have to locate (1), and only at (1) you can start opening the encryption
with the longterm private RSA key of the server.

It is impossible to open (3) directly, and the ClientKeyExchange
handshake message (and client&server randoms) that created the master secret
of session (3) is encrypted during renegotiation, so one can not
directly recover that with the longterm private RSA key of the server,
but has to open (2) first.