Re: [TLS] Quest for Unified Solution to TLS Renegotiation

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
>
> For hardware security modules that implement SSL3, that change means
> replacing the HSM.  The only change you can make to the definitions of
> md5_hash and sha_hash that won't require the hardware to be replaced is
> to change the definition of "handshake_messages".  That means somehow
> making the additional data part of the data stream that gets input into
> that MD5 or SHA function before "Sender", perhaps as if it was a pseudo
> handshake message.


Which is one of the reasons why I'm favouring to expand the definition
of handshake messages for renegotiation and _NOT_ touch the PRF or
do other fancy stuff.  The one thing that SSLv3 and TLS have in
common is the concept of handshake message hash (a lot of other
stuff changed significantly).  The handshake message hash is
also the thing that goes into both, Finished and CertificateVerify.


-Martin