Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TLS and non-secure on same port (WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-08)
Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 20:24 UTC
Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB333A686D; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:24:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 EPEoKNyCTOCO; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:24:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com (rcsinet10.oracle.com [148.87.113.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693413A6834; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:24:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id oA8KON7r030895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:24:24 GMT
Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id oA8K6Dm5026497; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:24:21 GMT
Received: from abhmt004.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 760081711289247852; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:24:12 -0800
Received: from oracle.com (/129.153.128.104) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:24:12 -0800
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 14:24:08 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>
To: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TLS and non-secure on same port (WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-08)
Message-ID: <20101108202407.GO6536@oracle.com>
References: <E1PFKZ3-0002jp-Bu@login01.fos.auckland.ac.nz> <p06240843c8fd6c508084@[130.129.55.1]> <4CD83312.5060000@extendedsubset.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CD83312.5060000@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-03-02)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:06:07 -0800
Cc: tls@ietf.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:24:05 -0000
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:27:46AM -0600, Marsh Ray wrote: > On 11/08/2010 03:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > >"some security issues": See the long Security Considerations section > >on RFC 3207. > > Hmmm, yes, the little matter of the downgrade attack. You have that with the out-of-band negotiation case too though. 1. Try the TLS port. Fail. 2. ??? If you connect to the non-TLS port you've just been downgraded, possibly not on purpose. Or maybe the client will then try StartTLS and give up if the server won't. If the client falls back on not using TLS at all then you have a problem. Every IM and e-mail client I've used has the option to not require TLS. That means they can be configured to fall back on not using TLS at all. Worse, there's usually a checkbox for using TLS as opposed to a checkbox for being insecure -- as a result, regardless of what the default is for that checkbox the user is likely to check it off if they run into any trouble. > It's a decision that ends up in the hands of the admin anyway. > Admins are already maintaining the ACLs on their firewall. Yes. > What are the advantages of running different versions of a protocol > (having radically different security properties) on the same vs. > different TCP ports? > > As I see it, running on different ports has some advantages: > > * Developers don't have to implement and test protocol support for > some negotiation scheme. > > * Developers don't have to code support for configuration When was the last time you saw a major IM or e-mail client that didn't let you toggle TLS? I can't remember when I last saw such a thing. If such an app gives you that toggle it's because the developers were willing to deal with the complexity of negotiation (whether starttls or not) and configuration (that toggle is it). > * Admins don't have to learn more configuration, site security > doesn't depend as much on the perfection of sendmail.cf. If you're going to use TLS chances are you'll be depending at least on server certs, and at least a small PKI or pre-shared self-signed certs or client-side SSH-style leap-of-faith. The PKI approach -> lots of admin (TA deployment, CA cert signing procedures, ...). Making sure that servers require TLS, whether StartTLS or otherwise, is not much harder. > I think a secure-only port number is the superior solution for many > reasons. The ability to reliably block insecure connections based on > looking only at the TCP/IP header is a powerful thing. You still have to be sure that the client and server will actually, you know, run TLS. The only benefit of a "secure-only port number" is that you don't have to make sure that the server requires TLS -- chances are near 100% it just won't work if it doesn't, in which case the problem is self- correcting (user files ticket, admins fix the problem). Nico --
- Security concerns around co-locating TLS and non-… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Michael D'Errico
- Re: Security concerns around co-locating TLS and … Geoffrey Keating
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Richard Hartmann
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Richard Hartmann
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Bill Frantz
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… t.petch
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Matt DeMoss
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Chris Newman
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] Security concerns around co-locating TL… Joe Touch