IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] TLS1.3

Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com> Sat, 16 February 2013 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <wtc@google.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319A721F842E for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:10:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hH6EfEjzcVAu for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:10:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57C221F8413 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:10:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id bn7so5472783ieb.25 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:10:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9mUssFPhuatZ2OP+LYowq2x8+QkU0OlXYgVSgQTHGMM=; b=EP2SH3An8ger2EyOse/d2UWlR6QTjgBrGpDxTCjJgIsGnp4zdW08oyfGMnouo+qNHV h1DszKfYXg3YN+o/o5jN4IpenOhyT4LbdYHdn2/RfltkUYlusY4e6Nj5VCj0KqXLYlaV ZHyltXJ7kmghuAKeAej/jCj2W2x2xDf4j6d3A+qxnOdhf0DiUIT97umPEw6L9iRlAxKq i7Ro03R5KHAsy+pXSj7QMnNrL/nmE7Hq7+mvNmyhVe5dqkN5YccphiiuZpxuR6mdYlz6 +fifs0+F9yU+sqZQvwvGTA0tx9MtpDa0qgpHc+P9M3ONwzzZhHip7Ky9HwZPLWQFoDzv jsiw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=9mUssFPhuatZ2OP+LYowq2x8+QkU0OlXYgVSgQTHGMM=; b=PZMpRlFax2tVHLFMIoGACm6SuAe6+l37G4AXZoMlevVMS8f8TD8DJ0685a3Fk7SZ/S 6FWdfm2SLppxhUTnaL4UN2HntrJAPBKXXba563U53qvDnHOa3GkJZ+tGd68jRORvTfJz vz106p8/VcZoIvJ+KkLhUnYCyepjtvdDGxDt1KhY46UR5tDieboDz8RBHqu9eksxNMkb SiLraGNj2O2Lyr51IcW4npjG/nVfxnH5z2RsR0CJQj1R/buJXYSBn4pTZs1N0cJbRtyl v5zblzhAWMKIxWT+VIhkqJPIosKpVTevdAlRq1rf8P8Z3e34APUVN2lKfnT/hw/aCL3y 2y3Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.48.147 with SMTP id s19mr2737616icf.18.1360973404291; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:10:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.92.65 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:10:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73334013EB@uxcn10-2.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73334013EB@uxcn10-2.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:10:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CALTJjxE3p1h=e=gN5F0-+i9sxesQtu1LbSVpDV52P-w4ixq6MQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMoRHxwca2y9bw1a3z7S3FPRWkeGV+KWvLmcVpbcvnP6KTkd8j93CfClRTrEhp+nFs+fBzmKKSFxtbm4dJSeDz+5EF2fT4KXiMvFDWZB3PlTH0OA1Od3dQJU50mviKbrksfy3whizbN0NKZMVKFlKeuDKjnEF2uZKhWt5tBjoJLLoORpaKxzlBTqqeIVzMTDmPX2ug
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS1.3
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:10:06 -0000

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Peter Gutmann
<pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> In what way would HMAC-MD5 be "too weak"?  I agree that HMAC-SHA1/
> SHA256 are a better proposition, but using HMAC-MD5 should be up to
> the implementer in any case. I've deprecated it for some years now, the
> minimum I'll do is HMAC-SHA1.  It's not as if there's a shortage of suites
> to choose from, and I've never found anything that does only -MD5 and
> not -SHA1.

There are some websites that enable only one cipher suite:
TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5. You can find some examples in this Chromium
bug report: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=118330

Wan-Teh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email