Re: [TLS] simplistic renego protection

[Michael D'Errico <[e-mail]>]

Eric Rescorla wrote:
> At Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:43:16 -0800,
> Michael D'Errico wrote:
>>
>> Is there some secret agenda to kill off SSLv3? What is the point
>> of that? 
> 
> Well, I don't think it's a secret that many feel that it would
> be good for people to upgrade from SSLv3 to TLS. TLS includes
> a number of useful security fixes and extended functionality.
> So, it's not clear it's great to go out of our way to preserve
> its use indefinitely.

The alternate method that does not use extensions is fairly complete.
People seem to have a problem with putting the server bit in the
version.  I can understand that, and am open to other ideas.  I've
suggested using a checksum within the server random for this, but
nobody has commented on it.

Thus you can not say we need to "go out of our way", the work is
already done, just needs some polish.

>> SSLv3 accounts for more than one-in-five connections as
>> reported to this list.
> 
> Well, I've seen this claimed, but I haven't seen a citation for where
> the data comes from. I'd be interested in seeing such a cite. The data
> I've seen (and posted) suggests that servers support TLS very widely,
> and certainly every piece of SSL/TLS-based software built on any even
> remotely modern stack includes support for TLS, whatever it chooses to
> negotiate.

Does it really matter what the exact numbers are for SSL vs. TLS?
If there are two proposals, one that supports both SSL and TLS, and
another that only supports TLS, why would you want to choose the
latter?

>>  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?
> 
> Because I feel that those other proposals are inferior in many
> other respects? I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to
> understand.

You never give concrete reasons for your dislike of alternate ideas,
just that you don't like them.  That is your opinion and you are
entitled to it, but since you don't give constructive suggestions
for improvement, it is unhelpful.  If you gave suggestions they would
be considered and incorporated into an updated proposal.

Personally I like extensions.  A lot.  But they are not needed for
this, and because they are not widely implemented, forcing them on
the population is ill-considered.

Mike