Re: [TLS] RFC-4366-bis and the unrecognized_name(112) alert

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[e-mail]>]

Michael D'Errico wrote:
> I agree with Yngve that a server should send either an empty SNI
> extension OR an unrecognized_name alert but not both.  However, I
> disagree that the server SHOULD NOT send a warning alert since that
> hides information from the client.
[...]
>     1 - server understood the SNI and used it to select an appropriate
>         certificate chain and other parameters
>     2 - server understood the SNI but did not recognize it as one of
>         its configured virtual hosts; however, the server is set up
>         to use a default configuration in that case
>     3 - server understood the SNI but did not recognize it as one of
>         its configured virtual hosts; there is no default configuration
>         available so the handshake can not continue
>     4 - server does not understand the SNI extension
> 
> The way my server reacts to each of these cases is:
> 
>     1 - add an empty SNI extension to ServerHello
>     2 - send a warning unrecognized_name alert
>     3 - send a fatal unrecognized_name alert
>     4 - send nothing
> 
> Yngve would prefer that nothing is sent in case 2, but then a client
> can not distinguish it from case 4.

I believe that his point was, what can the client do anyway? In both
cases the client just follows the handshake and will be prompted if the
"default" certificate doesn't match the connected host. Would the client
need to be warned that he is being connected using the "default"
certificate rather than any specific?


regards,
Nikos