Re: [TLS] draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate and MITM resistance

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

Hmmm, I think I can answer this myself:

Martin Rex wrote:
> 
> If you look at the TLSv1.0 spec (rfc2246) and TLSv1.1 spec (rfc4346),
> neither contains extension data in the ServerHello in the base spec.
> 
> Is there a reason why TLS extensions should _NOT_ be applicable
> to SSLv3 in just the same way they're applicable to TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1 ?
> 
> 
> There may be SSLv3 servers out there that choke on extension data
> in the ClientHello.  But that doesn't mean that one could not
> upgrade SSLv3 servers to support TLS extensions.  The more interesting
> question is IMHO -- which TLS clients will choke when an SSLv3 server
> returns a ServerHello extension?  spec-wise, a ServerHello extension
> is as unusual to SSLv3 as it is to TLSv1.0.

Since such an SSLv3 server will only be returning extensions in
an extended ServerHello that the TLS client asserted, and in our
specific situation here, the new extension for secure renegotiation
that we're just defining, then the answer is:  Test the update
before shipping it, and all TLS clients with the secure renegotiation
update ought to interoperate smoothly with SSLv3 servers that implement
this TLS extension.

Adding support for other/existing TLS extensions might eventually
confuse or upset installed base TLS clients, so I wouldn't try those
this time. :) 

-Martin