Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handshake and data messages
Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Tue, 21 June 2016 17:46 UTC
Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F95412DB67 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NUvwrGKqmXPt for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from welho-filter4.welho.com (welho-filter4.welho.com [83.102.41.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873CD12DB60 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter4.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BE54E25; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 20:46:51 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp2.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.85]) by localhost (welho-filter4.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.26]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ScnoYdfViP7l; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 20:46:51 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-100-177-32.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.100.177.32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp2.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 194E0283; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 20:46:51 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 20:46:50 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160621174650.GA2989@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <CAOgPGoDRZdJN7DY10tDoEEidVkxeKabCcW_U3vQqaaH6x162gw@mail.gmail.com> <CADi0yUN=FxZHMUtDke4qdaHuvDM2y0aFVCvVJkkpbzXFS0+LsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOU2a0NER+OQRb4ouhpKkF53ZNyKn5_amAANLrpOBnGWg@mail.gmail.com> <201606202343.42464.davemgarrett@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201606202343.42464.davemgarrett@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/wpEiaEXgXbxuEUvRwiWULGc3Vao>
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handshake and data messages
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:46:56 -0000
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:43:41PM -0400, Dave Garrett wrote: > > An idea for an option 4: Keep typing and keying as it currently is > (as of draft 13), but mandate a KeyUpdate immediately following > (and/or before) non-application traffic. We already have a mechanism > to use different keys in series, which sounds like it might be > simpler than trying to figure out a good way to do so in parallel. > > Is this a viable thought to pursue, or does this still not help >enough with our key separation worries? An additional thought > might be adding a random to KeyUpdate to make the new key not > based entirely on the old entropy. I don't think that would work. AFAIK, Basically using the appdata keys for anything else (and you do in the idea) breaks generic security. Of course, that generic security breaks does NOT imply that actual protocol security breaks, since for that one must actually make the actual protocol misuse the keys (and no reasonable way to do so is known for draft-13). And devising one seems very hard, since the operations you can try to misuse (and all are outside normal message space) are: - Rekey one direction of connection with a fresh key (key_update). - Request a certificate, send a certificate and proof of key holding (certificate_request, certificate, certificate_verify, finished) - Send a handle into separate dynamic PSK (new_session_ticket). And none of those seems to lend itself to misusing the key (the second has other known problems, but even fully separating the keys would not fix that). -Ilari
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Will Serumgard
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Björn Tackmann
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Subodh Iyengar
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Colm MacCárthaigh
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Hugo Krawczyk
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Paterson, Kenny
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Paterson, Kenny
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Nick Sullivan
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Dan Harkins
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Benjamin Dowling
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Felix Günther
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Björn Tackmann
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Henrik Grubbström
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Hannes Mehnert
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Cas Cremers
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Eric Rescorla
- [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handshake a… Joseph Salowey
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Andrei Popov
- Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handsha… Karthikeyan Bhargavan