Re: [xmpp] #39: prohibition on TLS renegotiation

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Sun, 27 June 2010 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47BB63A683F for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.203, 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 yc0G57GNuNNG for <xmpp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D421D3A6803 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-119.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.119]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 527BF40E4D for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:25:33 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4C27CFDC.4060701@stpeter.im>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:25:32 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: xmpp@ietf.org
References: <057.cd3487385f077266653b25eecf323b0d@tools.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <057.cd3487385f077266653b25eecf323b0d@tools.ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080502000608000506050007"
Subject: Re: [xmpp] #39: prohibition on TLS renegotiation
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:25:25 -0000

On 6/21/10 6:11 PM, xmpp issue tracker wrote:
> #39: prohibition on TLS renegotiation
> --------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  stpeter@…           |       Owner:  stpeter@…         
>      Type:  defect              |      Status:  new               
>  Priority:  minor               |   Milestone:                    
> Component:  3920bis             |     Version:                    
>  Severity:  In WG Last Call     |    Keywords:                    
> --------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
>  Regarding Section 5.2.5, Matthew Wild commented: "is it really desired to
>  put a complete ban on any renegotiation?"

Based on my conversations with TLS mavens and discussion in the TLS WG
during the interminable threads on the renegotiation vulnerability, I
would say: yes, it really is desired to put a complete ban on any
renegotiation.

Can you make an argument for why TLS renegotiation should be allowed in
XMPP applications?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/