IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Suspicious behaviour of TLS server implementations

Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> Thu, 22 September 2016 05:11 UTC

Return-Path: <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
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 F0F4B12D5C4 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 22:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=auckland.ac.nz
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 h2iCLYC62r5V for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 22:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.auckland.ac.nz (mx4.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.125.248]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 679EA12D5BC for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 22:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=auckland.ac.nz; i=@auckland.ac.nz; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1474521102; x=1506057102; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=NSbEBnunyValuSFY+AynURzTmayk3sSdReXglG5Trv0=; b=pDMpK//wiY4VmRnnk7R2ZKGwrlPhJsa5BI6APHeJM7hXImrrToAHT56a wSKacZLl+qCn264qk/WhbgRloWvEIJdqWKvlswC7d0HPtNLJu1WbhNQWr v75TSaUiZoEpceHSQKGZX+PVVnyCKzNFrrxvkqTZy8k44U6UEm+ofEBlo IiOskseL7kaX/TI/zfP9uK4GrW1vJhYKUDwnO1DyHQ3FbsDzxVf1ePejm O5VorDjKJXTAefB/79iPTk7JaG+aIr84bI2t477LQ/1kbkN9uquGmND2O LqqiLzhkvG1eyjuFya27ATOwrO6S1ay8KmMerenoJAmLGuZ6I2lj9Kwj6 g==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,377,1470657600"; d="scan'208";a="106971642"
X-Ironport-HAT: MAIL-SERVERS - $RELAYED
X-Ironport-Source: 10.6.2.5 - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from exchangemx.uoa.auckland.ac.nz (HELO uxcn13-ogg-d.UoA.auckland.ac.nz) ([10.6.2.5]) by mx4-int.auckland.ac.nz with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 22 Sep 2016 17:11:40 +1200
Received: from uxcn13-ogg-d.UoA.auckland.ac.nz (10.6.2.25) by uxcn13-ogg-d.UoA.auckland.ac.nz (10.6.2.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:11:40 +1200
Received: from uxcn13-ogg-d.UoA.auckland.ac.nz ([10.6.2.25]) by uxcn13-ogg-d.UoA.auckland.ac.nz ([10.6.2.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:11:40 +1200
From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Suspicious behaviour of TLS server implementations
Thread-Index: AQHSCqXVmMdwMkXxhEmPq8Svce2cg6Bwf1GAgAhiD77//1nRAIAKl8wAgAABIICAACcigIABLwcE//++HwCAASHctQ==
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 05:11:39 +0000
Message-ID: <1474521100084.53938@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <57D2E218020000AC0011B17E@gwia2.rz.hs-offenburg.de> <20160909152901.9008C1A552@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <1473853106532.3256@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <57D96E34020000AC0011B73F@gwia2.rz.hs-offenburg.de> <57E25106020000AC0011BF3A@gwia2.rz.hs-offenburg.de> <CABkgnnX7X+21wjChxkW-uhd8WXAMyp5f1F74H5ja=1mui4POiQ@mail.gmail.com> <57E272CB020000AC0011BF63@gwia2.rz.hs-offenburg.de> <1474473207998.35647@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, <CABkgnnWUwPeSeLBO8OyvKmb6MBBfNxPWEXw59_Kzkuby-WqDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWUwPeSeLBO8OyvKmb6MBBfNxPWEXw59_Kzkuby-WqDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [130.216.158.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ofpI0mXbScWWHpe_ICRRhcMiS_M>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Suspicious behaviour of TLS server implementations
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 22 Sep 2016 05:11:44 -0000

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> writes:

>The advantage with deploying a new protocol is that you can be strict. If, 
>for example, all of the browsers implement TLS 1.3 and are strict, then 
>Amazon won't be able to deploy a buggy 1.3 implementation without noticing 
>pretty quickly.  You might suggest that that's aspiration to the point of 
>delusion, but in fact it worked out pretty well with HTTP/2 deployment.  We 
>didn't squash ALL of the nasty bugs, but we got most of them.

It also means you're going to be in for a rude shock when you encounter the
ocean of embedded/SCADA/IoT devices with non-mainstream TLS implementations.
The reason why HTTP/2 "works" is that it essentially forked HTTP, HTTP/2 for
Google, Amazon, etc, and the browser vendors, and HTTP 1.1 for everything 
else that uses HTTP as its universal substrate.  As a result there will be 
two versions of HTTP in perpetuity, HTTP 1.1 and HTTP-whatever-the-current-
version-is.

(Should I mention TLS-LTS here? :-).

Peter.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email