Re: [TLS] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-lemon-tls-blocking-alert-00.txt

Hubert Kario <> Tue, 07 June 2016 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC07D12D5D5 for <>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.328
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, 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 wm4kDuWdSB1g for <>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B020012D576 for <>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:55:53 -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 38CE37F08C; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:55:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u579tp82011562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 05:55:52 -0400
From: Hubert Kario <>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 11:55:50 +0200
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.4.11-200.fc22.x86_64; KDE/4.14.17; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2022749.zYvfn1A8HX"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 ( []); Tue, 07 Jun 2016 09:55:53 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-lemon-tls-blocking-alert-00.txt
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: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 09:55:55 -0000

On Monday 06 June 2016 13:21:12 Ted Lemon wrote:
> I've posted a new document to the datatracker that adds some TLS alert
> codes that can be sent to indicate that a particular TLS request has
> been blocked by the network.   This attempts to address the problem
> of notifying the user of what went wrong when a site is blocked,
> without creating a channel that can be used by a hostile network to
> attack a user.

why separate malicious_site and policy_violation? Why not provide just a 
single administratively_prohibited? I don't see a difference to the 
user, in both cases the site will remain unavailable when retrying 
connection and in both cases if the user thinks it's a mistake he or she 
will need to contact the network administrator.

I don't understand the account_attention_* alerts. What account does the 
user need to log in? In what scenarios would they be used? How is it 
different from the captive_portal?
Hubert Kario
Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purky┼łova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic