Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re: Consensus Call:

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Tue, 11 May 2010 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D164828C2D5 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.021, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9pkFJPPxYxUL for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 12:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5083A6CA5 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2010 12:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1OBvBe-000CDQ-Qw; Tue, 11 May 2010 19:32:14 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5527B631D; Tue, 11 May 2010 19:32:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+hBGeQPiJiZ8WahUuyhyPQBewoJvA4ZuQ=
Message-ID: <4BE9B0BC.2000101@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 14:32:12 -0500
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100216 Thunderbird/3.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>
References: <20100510221531.GC9429@oracle.com> <201005111339.o4BDdoYQ009725@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <20100511152153.GF9429@oracle.com> <201005111803.o4BI3fhO006065@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil> <20100511190958.GR9429@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100511190958.GR9429@oracle.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: id=1E36DBF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil>, tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re: Consensus Call:
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Tue, 11 May 2010 19:35:31 -0000

On 5/11/2010 2:09 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> 
> Fatal errors are fatal.  But the error here isn't quite as fatal.  I
> suppose I can agree to view as such though and then there's no real
> problem.

1. Caching can't be done on the first handshake (for obvious reasons)

2. Cached info must be thrown out on any failure to successfully
complete a handshake (for security reasons)

So how much better is this caching scheme than what you could have today
with session resumption?

- Marsh