Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft

Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com> Mon, 21 December 2009 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mike-list@pobox.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 425973A6A7E for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:53:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, 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 nIzPH1Bzzz2L for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:53:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com [64.74.157.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703B03A68AA for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:53:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8660A8504 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:53:28 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=IAd33IPqnNeQ aUOMcBmlT2tWIAE=; b=o0O2Ei5qtECJ+e7vcok5qIILHs4r9zZ88j3JWSGFn6uG +2ZzAz3nc1ZwiDlcD9mc63wyTwZRp4N85GPxq/6jz28emkgBUJL3KUX23rh+9rna xKqV8lNnfJQgXpuWFRxTWujHLnTE5D6CjJOY10lhZay2TU00A+bOQChZoKOBoxQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=WSpHmd Vtec9WW7UPCVoKI2nAycLN19HIp5PmTCKg8eQFzCEvEQR4V/i7BxugSRj2UEdbpm I6dVpaGYcRt6uHIpfZyEk8GA33paW2d7m+Efy2VNFKolRXH6q5sStbkFKnrv9Hal op1qlQ5/V2SkleIFeMegbLLHyXPnK4eTX2jmk=
Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3885A8503 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:53:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from administrators-macbook-pro.local (unknown [24.234.114.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3AACDA84FC for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:53:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B2FB68C.1000400@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:55:24 -0800
From: Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tls@ietf.org
References: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E4A7EE854018@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local> <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB7758409B30F1@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <4B2FAAFB.5090908@pobox.com> <4B2FB265.5040203@drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4B2FB265.5040203@drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BED68A9E-EE59-11DE-99F0-B34DBBB5EC2E-38729857!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com
Subject: Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
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: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:53:46 -0000

I agree we need to publish ASAP, but if consensus is (1), then I need
to change my (running) code since it currently does (2).

Mike



Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> Michael D'Errico wrote:
>> So what's the consensus on this?
>>
>>   1) client MUST not send both signals, and a server MUST abort
>>      if it sees both
>>
>> or
>>
>>   2) client MAY send both signals, and the server MUST ignore
>>      SCSV when RI is present
>>
>> I prefer (2) since there is no security problem with the client sending
>> both -- the only problem is the current wording in the spec.  Remember
>> the spec is currently a DRAFT, and that means it is open to changes!  I
>> don't understand the reluctance to clarify this.
>>
> 
> I'd have a minor preference for #2 but I'd also vote for option #3
> 
> 3) Couldn't give a toss just get the fecking spec finalised, OK?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Steve.