Re: [TLS] Rizzo claims implementation attach, should be interesting

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 20 September 2011 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 B560221F8B08 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2uBP78KjujjC for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1869B21F8B0E for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so99911wyg.31 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.165.202 with SMTP id j10mr327331wby.18.1316490648141; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.55.82 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBM5CK2Tdr3v5662DfKtzPvRHntPRQsAwzz3JaeNtHBrKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201109200053.p8K0r5Pv012913@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <4E77FAF6.90707@extendedsubset.com> <CABcZeBM5CK2Tdr3v5662DfKtzPvRHntPRQsAwzz3JaeNtHBrKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:50:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP8KVsjg2CoJxDRcbHeoH-5dWiPBX1HG2VK4opv0eae=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Steingruebl Andy <asteingruebl@paypal-inc.com>, tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Rizzo claims implementation attach, should be interesting
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 20 Sep 2011 03:48:24 -0000

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone believe there would be support for a TLS 1.0 Hello extension
>> that could compatibly negotiate the use of empty messages in each direction
>> as a mitigation for this attack?
>
> The difference between TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 is so slight that if TLS
> 1.1 is indeed
> immune it would probably be easier to just have servers upgrade to 1.1.

s/servers/clients and servers/

Best,
-Ekr