Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem?
Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com> Mon, 28 September 2020 02:29 UTC
Return-Path: <mike-list@pobox.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 02DEE3A0C98 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.b=F+6P7vD8; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=HKfzaXjf
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 N1TSS6w1x809 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6D4C3A0C95 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2885C017F for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:29:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap21 ([10.202.2.71]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:29:05 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=E+ZfjCZVeqoTMBMfuSZV/Ez9JLLCL4d 4hXqgdC/wW7A=; b=F+6P7vD8PyBDZgS1pK9UwbVY3xv0K0QbcjrTDztsXOAUiV6 jbBAvB4FDc84o589rIxmvX8vNWDkAj3yrCRGUMb9KvMhKtKmQ7hTjMaidokexD9x cReNUMhwmHP1fPTVldzOaZTUZ2XpXZHirHKsl/9hZlQunXKCRdF/mbIC67r6jJLz j09b7AbML4Y5AixcrCkJfkq3fAakj3DsQnodeTr8jVEmdIHehEi1YwbH6+DntEsj NCw1EBYleBnfqhMMmAVA2nJx7tviQ36i2eeB9+CNDFNI/7N5TkQhx3uy5l5mTORk LdDXflSMLxN+luF0ZoWX8bRNDdcz6syDNsXLsxA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=E+ZfjC ZVeqoTMBMfuSZV/Ez9JLLCL4d4hXqgdC/wW7A=; b=HKfzaXjf1FT3v5tLxYm2Xw KVrPTRFMOyXBPGcndp4kJr675xpKuIu0071UZDXiisQLZYFJ/X98YH/7H6WLLpNb WaQSJAnAqi00I4hbbPm8ZqsLGa1Q26g/ouUt8p7eBYEdojQuIK1Rm7darPw3y6f/ T3vNbypnF4opyV19RpTa98DHYBx3DWnURM/cKigWBgrC5z5MsYWmXXhS6Z3hcVH9 9HhB+funXVpKGZ+2mlLCtG0RR82i++dqbniWEElyz6uUJ10Nn7HHQtozs+RU+cne IQv2BqOjgE9UcyafevMEIP0m6HGCyFyK2qoSf+go7rcG/7RHlHFySuEGnSKUTXDQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:cUpxX_1dwggBtrXktrGRBpnCyY-XDvjaGMY79e1XRBn-KPs8pv29lg> <xme:cUpxX-FuZa6iKzvNcBpwWgod51IgFvZ_9CWT4XBY-KhQmkeAguThGLFf3PbyiEMps 7RHAWHHHxohx6JPIg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvdehgdeitdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfoihgthhgrvghlucffkdfgrhhrihgtohdfuceomhhikhgv qdhlihhsthesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepieejueegheelgf ehtddvueetteefuefgffdvkeehteeutdekffejtedtiefggfdtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfu ihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhikhgvqdhlihhsthesphhosg hogidrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:cUpxX_6zmq-BFu8m8807wjoQcgjeYsPW41Tx_Bk_xpRtlj7ZOOP4Sg> <xmx:cUpxX01DoDl5Ausd09wFX78U5ry2H1kLSmJDSEqSBpYqZsuc_D4QTA> <xmx:cUpxXyGa85JEqvKgdMZIL0mNxL71-UUjXh0AcZOyaP5AIhcKM9hwAg> <xmx:cUpxX2SrTx6f7JvzUcbiwBr9EWrPfaD4E4qL2x6kdaF16tspbEJThw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6E6DE660069; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:28:57 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-355-g3ece53b-fm-20200922.004-g3ece53b9
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <76b11b36-db4e-4bac-80e0-96565013c158@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+_8xu0TvfHkvL0jRsP8+fiXD=7s5CyPK31GhRv9oEnMJQsFFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0c31f2d6-5f8e-2fd6-9a1a-08b7902dd135@pobox.com> <CA+_8xu0TvfHkvL0jRsP8+fiXD=7s5CyPK31GhRv9oEnMJQsFFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 22:28:43 -0400
From: Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/q53BNrfH65SkW-eIx_KFf06eO4A>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 02:29:08 -0000
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020, at 16:53, Ben Smyth wrote: > The client will reject the server's ServerHello in your example. OK, so all eggs in one basket? I'm afraid to keep reading.... Mike
- [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Ben Smyth
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Richard Barnes
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] HelloRetryRequest question (was Re: TLS… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Rob Sayre
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Ben Smyth
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? mrex
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Problem? Michael D'Errico
- [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhile? … Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Hannes.Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Benjamin Kaduk
- [TLS] HelloRetryRequest question (was Re: TLS 1.3… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] HelloRetryRequest question (was Re: TLS… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] HelloRetryRequest question (was Re: TLS… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Rob Sayre
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Nick Harper
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Michael D'Errico
- [TLS] Client attacks on stateless HRR? (was Re: I… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Nick Lamb
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] Is stateless HelloRetryRequest worthwhi… Luke Curley