Re: [TLS] No more GMT exposure in the handshake

Viktor Dukhovni <> Sun, 08 June 2014 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3341A0183 for <>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aKOtk_jz-awP for <>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 08:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64BB01A0192 for <>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 08:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1034) id 0CC702AB222; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 15:39:37 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 15:39:36 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [TLS] No more GMT exposure in the handshake
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 15:40:14 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 15:40:14 -0000

On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 03:10:46PM +0000, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:

> That sounds fine to me, sure. I admit, I haven't put a lot of thought
> into the format because it seems that most of the momentum is in
> removing anything meaningful from that field.

A good thing.  If the client wants a server time-stamp, it can ask
for it via an extension.

> In any case, having 64bits of timing information from a server would
> allow for a parasitic network time protocol that is as accurate as NTP
> to be built on top of TLS. I haven't checked but I believe Google
> still uses this to set clocks on ChromeOS.

"As accurate as NTP" is a bold claim.  NTP "accuracy" (as opposed
to precision which is a different beast entirely) comes from using
multiple sourcs a PLL to estimate round-trip delay and smooth out
noise, and when possible multiple sources, ...

NTP runs over UDP which is less likely to be delayed, re-transmitted, ...

Attaining NTP "accuracy" over TLS, seems rather implausible.