Re: [TLS] client and server verify_data in draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Fri, 13 November 2009 20:41 UTC
Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47EC3A67C0 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:41:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qno7uCXniDmB for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.98.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20EA3A6783 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dm-central-01.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.4]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id nADKgOpO015228 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:42:24 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-01.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id nADKgONS021091 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:42:24 -0700 (MST)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nADKNHvD019438; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:23:17 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id nADKNGdl019437; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:23:16 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:23:16 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Robert Dugal <rdugal@certicom.com>
Message-ID: <20091113202316.GZ1105@Sun.COM>
References: <7E1DF37F1F42AB4E877E492C308E6AC402430344@XCH57YKF.rim.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7E1DF37F1F42AB4E877E492C308E6AC402430344@XCH57YKF.rim.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] client and server verify_data in draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:41:56 -0000
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:28:53PM -0500, Robert Dugal wrote: > A co-worker an I have been discussing the draft and have some concerns > about sending client and server verify_data in the extension. > > In the ClientHello, the client sends the verify_data from the client's > previous Finish message as the renegotiated_connection data. > > In the ServerHello, the server sends both the cient's verify_data and > the server's verify_data. > > This data is not normally sent in the clear and I am wondering if this > will provide additional data that can be used to mount some other form > of attack . See: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-07.txt which addresses your concern. > The only reason we are sending any data at all is to prove that the > renegotiation is bound to a previous handshake, so why not bind it with > some data that is on the wire and visible to everyone? One of my counter-proposals, which I ask to be considered if the use of extensions is problematic for interop reasons, is to add the outer/old connection's client Finished message as one more input in the inner/new connection's Finished message verify_data computation (see post to tls@ietf.org with message-ID <20091113005419.GQ1105@Sun.COM>. The rationale for that proposal is not that Finished message verify_data is sensitive (it is not), but that the use of extensions may be harmful to interop (and if that's not the case, then that proposal is to be ignored). > One possability is to use the client and server randoms as the > renegotiated_connection data. This data is sent as plaintext on the > wire so it reveals nothing the attacker doesn't already know. I explained why that doesn't work in a post with message-ID <20091105171308.GY1105@Sun.COM> posted on Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:13:08 -0600 (subject: Re: [TLS] TLS renegotiation issue). > Another alternative could be to use the client's encrypted Finish > message rather than the verify_data from Client's Finish message, and > server's encrypted Finish message. See: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-07.txt Nico --
- [TLS] client and server verify_data in draft-resc… Robert Dugal
- Re: [TLS] client and server verify_data in draft-… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] client and server verify_data in Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] client and server verify_data in draft-… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] client and server verify_data in draft-… David-Sarah Hopwood
- Re: [TLS] client and server verify_data in draft-… David-Sarah Hopwood