Re: [TLS] Data volume limits

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 28 December 2015 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4A81AC44B for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:37:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gEuBSZYzDHec for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:37:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x235.google.com (mail-yk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C86E1AC44A for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:37:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id x67so111683597ykd.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:37:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=sY7msiXysqT54DAXhmkCyU7OZghGxHgxJuLdLQWVPp4=; b=AcPHlz26xmtjWEMazAnERLYgcRdVQpjiPygqlTqk5sN/zcxPuBTj1NCIyz86fuhNrQ qKMyRocj61chdWHoZUGwX6DZcBCg4rGI1wgxRs5eTSEpksTC8A22pZN0XZ5uNJZY/aWU zYbY9Yl2/fJ+Bp9tWWEYWEzQnCGoFk1xgx0Wuh+nMx2hRqTQrbKQD56b/ZPDRP8mQ7ZX 0AibT256MZBVh+W3JAEeMOZr+r0ce9+5enzLVz0NvQChr7MmClx+UDmA7MhCYH5uF3Vz cHE4wtrGDbk5IANxbt9PGEwnbIB3uF6kcmHowRpJ6EsFqJt+ZTlNjiO4YukgWLEDJzQ9 /u3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=sY7msiXysqT54DAXhmkCyU7OZghGxHgxJuLdLQWVPp4=; b=O2fxDyYV9JZVuCuZIKfPafTVl9UOhzQwJaTC87zgWU1i2BusOTlmH4JcIYpeHW59wj v2dI9QMl9MjuDpb3g93EDwH6y+7UuVz20D0mlgklMJ+9z+iYeQBsUl2pHGLJDlc0B/RS g30Ai8OPOXGg19aImF7wwgxD3zRxn+LXl45Joy3K0FhMmzDySoOrV5nLzppab5WElJ+t wwO8OiqETaFgKjvjljPpgrcQZSbBO3rl/6oxZsEnJrEeFlolLHXG9/eJfvnR8XLfdvKt 4w+ndDL8hRXxGxD50fS+v7RLOktg9A1X5n1GUkpBne95mUymyt4Q3HKXNnVljpTs5QHg UQtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn+5wEbY0g2oJwEiPTBmEF9VFbKXbPIhuqC43HfyOcEsWW8sDXTZ7T55jf4cB80HdF+nPfuwXCTJvNUeEozuXxwrRKPPA==
X-Received: by 10.129.153.3 with SMTP id q3mr47336622ywg.231.1451335036426; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:37:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.249.197 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:36:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56819C7C.2040804@redhat.com>
References: <r422Ps-10112i-A7598D6B042F444AA21AABEA3552ADF5@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local> <1575673.4lLVr77Sve@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <568196AA.4040100@redhat.com> <CABcZeBPOdZ7Qw_6w95kgAKHmGZcao6ufPp6J4TpSBcooaBBxHw@mail.gmail.com> <56819C7C.2040804@redhat.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:36:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO10jbqNu4dHYTv4gou24tm-a3j1tVHHVf7X8HKFR6HcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0bbfae4c04720527fb4528
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/lm9iXUABIAgB2G56kTOFRVUlcac>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Data volume limits
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:37:18 -0000

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 12/28/2015 09:11 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> >> You still have the added complexity that during rekey, you need to
> >> temporarily switch from mere sending or receiving to at least
> >> half-duplex interaction.
> >>
> >
> > That's not intended. Indeed, you need to be able to handle the old key
> > in order to send/receive the KeyUpdate. Can you elaborate on your
> concern?
>
> Ah, so you want to keep the current mechanism and not inject fresh
> randomness?  Isn't this fairly risky?


Can you explain the risk you are concerned about in more detail?

-Ekr