Re: [TLS] Premaster/Master convention

["StJohns, Michael" <[e-mail]>]

Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.

On Thursday, July 31, 2014, Gero, Charlie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sorry for the lack of clarity.  What I mean is, I think Akamai will be
> able to keep our current system working even with PMS to MS removed given:
>
> 1. Removal of the PMS to MS step is done in 1.3 and forward only (this
> seems obvious, but in the argument of explicitness...)
>
> AND
>
> 2. TLS 1.3 removes static RSA key exchange.
>
> AND
>
> 3. TLS 1.3 removes renegotiation.
>
> If any of those constraints break, our current architecture will require
> significant change.
>
> Regards,
> *Charlie Gero*
> Senior Principal System Software Engineer
> Team Lead Engineering - Akamai Labs
> 617.444.3940
>
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 1:34 PM, "Michael StJohns" <[e-mail]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/2014 9:18 PM, Gero, Charlie wrote:
>
> Sorry for the second late response.  Hectic day.  Here's a follow up from
> the previous.
>
>  No probs
>
>
>  In addition, as long as TLS 1.3 keeps static RSA key exchange and
> renegotiation out as well as only removing PMS to MS in 1.3 and later, we
> should be ok.  As someone adeptly inferred earlier, this is where things
> would get hairy for us if any of these constraints are violated.
>
>
>
> I couldn't parse this very well - too many missing commas.  Did you mean?:
>
> "In addition, as long as TLS1.3 only removes static RSA key exchange and
> renegotiation we should be ok"
>
> - and -
>
> "If removing the pre-master secret only applies to TLS1.3 and later we
> should be ok"
>
> I thought removing the pre-master regardless of rev was the issue?
>
> Mike
>
>