IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] TLS or HTTP issue?

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Sat, 07 November 2009 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931863A680D for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 00:30:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pnSxeU8ttsf1 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 00:30:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15CA3A63EC for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 00:30:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1N6ggs-000Bnj-2d for tls@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:30:34 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D329667B for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:30:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/uHFtQaNt9rkmYoih9gtlQrLNBKz1Ata8=
Message-ID: <4AF53027.6030701@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:30:31 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <200911061713.nA6HDi2n021935@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <4AF52966.3070400@gnutls.org>
In-Reply-To: <4AF52966.3070400@gnutls.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=1E36DBF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS or HTTP issue?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:30:11 -0000

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> 
> the application layer
> cannot distinguish between the two sessions (one before renegotiation,
> one after). The problem was for me that you could receive any amount of
> application data even after a rehandshake was requested, thus I had to
> cache them and present to the application after rehandshake was finished.

Yes, yes!

The buffered stream IO model we all take for granted is insufficient to
represent the semantics of a TLS connection in the presence of
renegotiation!

Even with an added callback for cert validation, ambiguities linger!

I think it highly probable that real vulnerabilities exist in
applications due to this mismatch.

The draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate extension should help quite a bit though.

- Marsh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email