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

Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Tue, 07 June 2016 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <hkario@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC07D12D5D5 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.328
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wm4kDuWdSB1g for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B020012D576 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38CE37F08C; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:55:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pintsize.usersys.redhat.com (dhcp-0-122.brq.redhat.com [10.34.0.122]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (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 <hkario@redhat.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 11:55:50 +0200
Message-ID: <3372929.xMFAkkVyhb@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.4.11-200.fc22.x86_64; KDE/4.14.17; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=YRyfmWDFxNHTj6Kb+mVf4w=sqt2Wp_i-gzp03+UjGqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160606171459.20797.7839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPt1N1=YRyfmWDFxNHTj6Kb+mVf4w=sqt2Wp_i-gzp03+UjGqw@mail.gmail.com>
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 10.5.11.27
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Tue, 07 Jun 2016 09:55:53 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/bcVs847i-TX_9ClK3BkZOIIFj7Y>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-lemon-tls-blocking-alert-00.txt
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=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?
-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario
Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purky┼łova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic