Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

Peter Gutmann <> Sat, 01 October 2016 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22D012B08E for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 04:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.516
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KGQoAmjZdftt for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CEBD12B04B for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 04:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1475320989; x=1506856989; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=s6iRo1EVgWuxGLA3rLXNxqRvBuLhX5q3GUkCJbsqjFk=; b=sQiVjTIJ6T+B0qG9SrFf0at+/RApHg1BMSJXeSqIcAthUXiv1HvCykbw 1lgEK411vVE6HuA/idQom04zykQtDMgChQKMhxYpYjb3bPBO0QI2suSIe X+kNJyAKvA+AlvdyuLpNNnNfflXY6goWq8Qw4ZPamYA896LtFdj0GSXXq UolCMghSdH9nPaqt3J6cSygQrtn0QGzmgbXxy9NnJWd2eS6KLoO3/AEmy 1/VAf9t0uc1EmePRagVaCQhM+MWf/ygYQECq4yWUswMFt2cSYnXkY6fgZ 62cgVCjlurGuFA1tjeeIrKZc1ZtcrXvgSVph4CAAde1pk5MmGX7mBFJz8 A==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,426,1473076800"; d="scan'208";a="108210274"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 02 Oct 2016 00:23:06 +1300
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 00:23:05 +1300
Received: from ([fe80::8081:99e3:dee2:203]) by ([fe80::8081:99e3:dee2:203%14]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 00:23:05 +1300
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: Ryan Carboni <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3
Thread-Index: AQHSGh9MM9WBapZoQzyfqxiOaK25faCTd8yU
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 11:23:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 11:23:12 -0000

Ryan Carboni <> writes:

>I've never quite understood what TLS was supposed to be protecting against,
>and whether or not it has done so successfully, or has the potential to do so

It's the Inside-Out Thread Model (also shared by a number of other security
protocols, it's not just TLS), "our defence is SSL/TLS/IPsec/PKI/…  and our
threat model is whatever that happens to defend against".  DNSSEC is a classic
example of this, the DNSSEC requirements doc was published *a decade* after
DNSSEC itself.  Mind you, other protocols are still waiting for their
requirements doc to be published.  PKIX specifically actively declined to
consider use cases because heck, this is a standards committee dammit, we
can't be expected to take into account what people want to do with it.

Mind you, in the absence of any success criteria, no-one can say you've