Re: [TLS] draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate and MITM resistance

[Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/11/09 3:15 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:02:06PM -0600, Marsh Ray wrote:
>> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:08:53PM -0600, Marsh Ray wrote:
>>>
>>> TLS connections are not so long lived
>> But there is no defined upper limit.
> 
> True, and indeed, IMAP depends on that.  Are there IMAP/other servers
> the request re-negotiation when a client's cert reaches/nears
> expiration?
> 
> If so then my assertion that we don't have to worry about key rollover/
> cert expiration would be wrong.  Indeed, it's safer to assume that that
> assertion was wrong as finding out for sure would be hard.
> 
> However, this is a constraint that _applications_ could enforce, or
> request be enforced by the TLS implementation (oh dear, back to APIs).

IMHO this is the responsibility of the application. For example in XMPP
we use long-lived TCP connections and, on top of those, long-lived XML
streams that can be TLS-protected. In practice, for server-to-server
federation (and even for client-to-server communication) those
connections might be up for days, weeks, even months. At this point the
handling of long-lived XML streams is unspecified, but I would expect
most XMPP servers to terminate the connection and force the other party
to reconnect. I'll bring this up on the XMPP WG list...

Peter

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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkr51nQACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwTMgCdHDyyU/rnldyl27WEtBik6oTv
eKQAoNIY18NGdVOjSpEtpsTPWV49RhQc
=Rah7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----