IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Data volume limits

Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Mon, 04 January 2016 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <hkario@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F2E1A1ACA for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 04:00:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 wiVLR8I9Wl_7 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 04:00:01 -0800 (PST)
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 F1B241A1A72 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 04:00:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66C3D42E5C8 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:00:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pintsize.usersys.redhat.com (dhcp-0-127.brq.redhat.com [10.34.0.127]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u04Bxwo0012418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 06:59:59 -0500
From: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:59:53 +0100
Message-ID: <3389370.HsjF9M0k0s@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.2.8-200.fc22.x86_64; KDE/4.14.14; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <568196AA.4040100@redhat.com>
References: <r422Ps-10112i-A7598D6B042F444AA21AABEA3552ADF5@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local> <1575673.4lLVr77Sve@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <568196AA.4040100@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2846276.v47S9rN5B6"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cJY36wM98FLImMB7Pu_vkQclSfg>
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Data volume limits
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <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: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:00:02 -0000

On Monday 28 December 2015 21:08:10 Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 01:41 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > if the rekey doesn't allow the application to change authentication
> > tokens (as it now stands), then rekey is much more secure than
> > renegotiation was in TLS <= 1.2
> 
> You still have the added complexity that during rekey, you need to
> temporarily switch from mere sending or receiving to at least
> half-duplex interaction.

this situation already happens in initial handshake so the 
implementation needs to support that

I don't see how rekey adds complexity here...

-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario
Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email