Re: [TLS] simplistic renego protection

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

Michael D'Errico wrote:
> 
> You forgot to mention:
> 
> 4.3.  SSLv3
> 
>     SSLv3 does not support extensions and thus it is not possible to
>     securely renegotiate with SSLv3.  Deployments wishing to renegotiate
>     securely will need to upgrade to at least TLS 1.0.
> 
> Is there some secret agenda to kill off SSLv3?  What is the point
> of that?  SSLv3 accounts for more than one-in-five connections as
> reported to this list.  There is an alternate proposal that does not
> have this limitation, and is better in many other respects.  Why do
> you keep pushing this one?


This statement about SSLv3 actually reverts history.

The fact is, that SSLv3 has THE EXACT SAME provisions for
TLS extensions as TLSv1.0.

But TLS extensions seems to exclude _itself_ from being used with SSLv3
-- which looks like a pretty bad idea, given that the extensibility
of TLSv1.0 and SSLv3 is verbatim the same.


-Martin