IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-curve25519-01: Is public key validation necessary or helpful?

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Thu, 31 December 2015 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=0807c2c680=uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 509C41A00D0 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:17:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 TDOGzfR8Hx3Q for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.ll.mit.edu (MX1.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA941A03A3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local) by mx1.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id tBVKGaRL009539; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:17:19 -0500
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: Alyssa Rowan <akr@akr.io>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-curve25519-01: Is public key validation necessary or helpful?
Thread-Index: AdFECCXz/+qKCFGi70GWkMEmG0pPlA==
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:16:35 +0000
Message-ID: <20151231201644.17780804.55594.43078@ll.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="===============0488936153=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.15.21, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-12-31_14:2015-12-31,2015-12-31,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=inbound_notspam policy=inbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1511060000 definitions=main-1512310353
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/oH6veQwW83UEOT7n_Uj0gWkSP78>
Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-curve25519-01: Is public key validation necessary or helpful?
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: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:17:46 -0000

I think Watson made a good point about "omittable checks". ‎If an implementation A "omits" this mechanism, it should fail session establishment.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
  Original Message  
From: Alyssa Rowan
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 01:23
To: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-curve25519-01: Is public key validation necessary or helpful?

v2.2.0 | Report a Bug | By Email