[TLS] Unfortunate current practices for HTTP over TLS

Adam Langley <agl@google.com> Tue, 18 January 2011 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <agl@google.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0F43A6F61 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:18:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.32
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.658, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U4Myg2KGBy4b for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059233A6D82 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com []) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p0IMLCTi017120 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:21:12 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1295389272; bh=w0uH4kXqlLg4lyFhNkjoiHQ/mmw=; h=MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Content-Type; b=agQrwkJ47ijzwZ1c6jIYDLXnBS95mAJMxuPLOpG35T+5D8KiMPr1xqS3ialie8NLD fdKNai7IpyCEuO4mjTKGA==
Received: from ywo7 (ywo7.prod.google.com []) by wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p0IMLBxI008133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:21:12 -0800
Received: by ywo7 with SMTP id 7so40371ywo.23 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:21:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=JrlTNx5ef0sP/JYCh4Lnx5gxu+NkVrzaXZKIeHlasEg=; b=lPnsD/EdBzV36RSQB3zZ0WS4FHeX6+zeU5BP+4R2Uvl12BHjflRn/rj/SgREw2i5LZ QVKphoZGOgIb5kNj1VqA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=ydkkOSGgWRIOcEYH9PYwml1JtwJxcAJDVGjDRjVB9lYMOseezWKkVx0Dfi1xQBZVSb Ss14zZ/HZcglK2U3d76g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id p18mr1694327ybf.324.1295389271098; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:21:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:21:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:21:11 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikX_9F9z0n1wfeAGX0W5ZcSupeK9v2UGO9D9KPp@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Subject: [TLS] Unfortunate current practices for HTTP over TLS
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: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:36 -0000

The following is presented mostly for the member's enjoyment:

Network Working Group                                         A. Langley
Internet-Draft                                                Google Inc
Expires: July 5, 2011                                           Jan 2011

            Unfortunate current practices for HTTP over TLS


   This document describes some of the unfortunate current practices
   which are needed in order to transport HTTP over TLS on the public

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 5, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Handshake message fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Protocol Fallback  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  More implementation mistakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Certificate Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Insufficient Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Appendix A.  Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.  Introduction

   HTTP [RFC2616] is one of the most common application level protocols
   transported over TLS [RFC5246].  (This combination is commonly known
   as HTTPS based on the URL scheme used to indicate it.)  HTTPS clients
   have to function with a huge range of TLS implementations, some of
   higher quality than others.  This text aims to document some of the
   behaviours of existing HTTPS clients that are designed to ensure
   maximum interoperability.

   This text should not be taken as a recommendation that future HTTPS
   clients adopt these behaviours.  The security implications of each
   need to be carefully considered by each implementation.  However,
   these behaviours are common and the authors consider it better to
   document the state of practice than to simply wish it were otherwise.

2.  Handshake message fragmentation

   Many servers will fail to process a handshake message that spans more
   than one record.  These servers will close the connection when they
   encounter such a handshake message.  HTTPS clients will commonly
   ensure against that by either packing all handshake messages in a
   flow into a single record, or by creating a single record for each
   handshake message.

3.  Protocol Fallback

   Despite it being nearly twelve years since the publication of TLS 1.0
   [RFC2246], around 3% of HTTPS servers will reject a valid TLS
   "ClientHello".  These rejections can take the form of immediately
   closing the connection or a fatal alert.  Intolerance to the
   following has been observed:

      Advertising version TLS 1.0.

      Advertising a TLS version greater than TLS 1.0 (around 2% for 1.1
      or 1.2, around 3% for greater than 1.2).

      Advertising a version greater than 0x03ff (around 65% of servers)

      The presence of any extensions (around 7% of servers)

      The presence of specific extensions ("server_name" and
      "status_request" intolerance has been observed, although in very
      low numbers).

      The presence of any advertised compression algorithms

   Next, some servers will misbehave after processing the "ClientHello"
   message.  Negotiating the use of "DEFLATE" compression can result in
   fatal "bad_record_mac", "decompression_failure" or
   "decryption_failed" alerts.  Notably, OpenSSL prior to version 0.9.8c
   will intermittently fail to process compressed finished messages due
   to a work around of a previous padding bug.

   Lastly, some servers will negotiate the use of SSLv3 but select a
   TLS-only cipher suite.

   In all these cases, HTTPS clients will often enter a fallback mode.
   The connection is retried using only SSLv3 and without advertising
   any compression algorithms.  (This is obviously an easy downgrade
   attack.)  Also, the fallback can be triggered by transient network
   problems, which often manifest as an abruptly closed connection.
   Since SSLv3 does not provide any means of Server Name Indication
   [RFC3546], the fallback connection can use the wrong certificate
   chain, resulting in a very surprising certificate error.

4.  More implementation mistakes

   Non-fatal errors in version negotiation also occur.  Some 0.2% of
   servers use the version from the record header.  Around 0.6% of
   servers require that the version in the "ClientHello" and record
   header match in order to respect the version in the "ClientHello".  A
   very low number of servers echo whatever version the client

   In the event that the client supports a higher protocol version than
   the server, about 0.4% of servers require that the RSA
   "ClientKeyExchange" message include the server's protocol version.

   Some 30% of servers don't check the version in an RSA
   "ClientKeyExchange" at all.

5.  Certificate Chains

   Certificate chains presented by servers will commonly be missing
   intermediate certificates, have certificates in the wrong order and
   will include unrelated, superfluous certificates.  Servers have been
   observed presenting more than ten certificates in what we assume is a
   drive-by shooting approach to including the correct intermediate

   In order to validate chains which are missing certificates, some
   HTTPS clients will collect intermediate certificates from other
   servers.  Clients will commonly put all the presented certificates
   into a set and try to validate a chain assuming only that the first
   certificate is the leaf.

6.  Insufficient Security

   Some 65% of servers support SSLv2 (beyond just supporting the
   handshake in order to upgrade to SSLv3 or TLS).  HTTPS clients will
   typically not support SSLv2, nor send SSLv2 handshakes by default.
   Of those servers, 80% support the export ciphersuites.  (Although
   about 3% of those servers negotiate weak ciphersuites only to show a

   Some servers will choose very small multiplicative group sizes for
   their ephemeral Diffie-Hellman exchange (for example, 256-bits).
   Some HTTPS clients will reject all multiplicative group sizes smaller
   than 512-bits while others will retry after demoting DHE ciphersuites
   in their "ClientHello".

7.  Acknowledgements

   Yngve Pettersen made significant contributions and many of the
   numbers in this document come from his scanning work.  Other numbers
   were taken from Ivan Ristic's SSL Survey.

   Thanks to Wan Teh Chang for reviewing early drafts.

8.  Normative References

   [RFC2246]  Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
              RFC 2246, January 1999.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC3546]  Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J.,
              and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Extensions", RFC 3546, June 2003.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.