Re: [TLS] CPU cost of 1RTT handshake

Watson Ladd <> Mon, 11 August 2014 04:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F27E1A02DB for <>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kHJaWt4XyGKv for <>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB48C1A02D0 for <>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 9so5674574ykp.29 for <>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wAoOUmR4b0CSGqg+hKs915sqgjcSe/fz2lOxUldHedk=; b=jXwQwqNd/PdxO9NStSDwmeZ8MlsgQKCw7EQhn6QlCumaqZqd7PKZOjyiEZLMGBbs2w PWIpgAqX27/1J9SXLwrC04/nb/ZPyI2OTmZUzNAsN5Mgjy1xGMczqapbnMnqXIKQce3Z 0T0Oao9y72FgYoBFX4KuBHmvfuAz52jm/ugXn+J8YqX+EDMg8JfGaMq5Hl00eILJRNP9 lf1oakXiF0svmzxBw3fDfdw7bXv9zo9qvPmwtgBMtrjnPAgYuQHoFP7Im/h0JoUqb3FZ MWhZwIxI8U2UBXCpf2VDOPPC5KWWZR3NGw3l/YfA9gumfzRvrVG3YM95+CTAQJFvd55+ qSPg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id q25mr39475945yhi.62.1407731310113; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 21:28:30 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Watson Ladd <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] CPU cost of 1RTT 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: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 04:28:32 -0000

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Eric Rescorla <> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Watson Ladd <> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> Right now, instead of the server defining the group to be used and
>> sending a key in the group, the client computes multiple keys, and the
>> server selects one. This is very bad for embedded devices with
>> constrained CPU, especially if they are connecting to a server over
>> high-latency, low-bandwidth links.
>> The justification for the current behavior is similarity to 0-RTT. But
>> I'm not convinced that this actually makes the protocol or
>> implementations any simpler, and it has real costs for many devices
>> that will otherwise not adopt TLS or try to invent their own encrypted
>> protocols.
> I'm not sure I would phrase the protocol behavior exactly as you have
> above. Rather, the client sends a list of the groups it supports  (as in
> TLS 1.2). It can also send any number of (EC)DHE shares that match
> those groups. If the server selects a group that matches one of those
> shares, the handshake proceeds. Otherwise, the server tells the
> client which group it has selected and the client then adds a share
> from that group to the list.
> In other words:
> 1. The server does get to select the group as  it can reject all the
> client's shares (thougb of course it cannot force the client to use
> a group it does not accept or know about)..
> 2. The client is not forced to send any shares. It can simply send
> an empty ClientKeyExchange (See S 7.4.2) and then wait for the
> server to select a group. In other words, it can act as you suggest
> above, but at the cost of a round trip. It's a explicit computation/
> latency tradeoff.

It's a completely unnecessary one: the server can send its share, then
the client goes, which is followed by the remaining messages. Why are
we making 1-RTT unnecessarily expensive?

Watson Ladd