IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Mon, 21 December 2009 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.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 8C6EC28C0D7 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:01:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.535
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, 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 7lgiXGhZufxq for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dlpdemo.checkpoint.com (dlpdemo.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A33C28C0CF for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:01:20 -0800 (PST)
X-CheckPoint: {4B2F3841-10006-14201DC2-FFFF}
Received: by dlpdemo.checkpoint.com (Postfix, from userid 105) id C4B9A29C00B; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:01:03 +0200 (IST)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (michael.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.68]) by dlpdemo.checkpoint.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70AA29C002; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:01:03 +0200 (IST)
X-CheckPoint: {4B2F3841-10000-14201DC2-FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id nBL913T7026287; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:01:03 +0200 (IST)
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:01:14 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:01:00 +0200
Thread-Topic: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
Thread-Index: AcqCHCXId4aNo7UgQ3yub4e1gVkb8Q==
Message-ID: <5CF5521D-BE6C-4F3F-97DA-5C4B442836BD@checkpoint.com>
References: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E4A7EE854018@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local>
In-Reply-To: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E4A7EE854018@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
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 09:01:23 -0000

It makes the semantics of SCSV unclear. Not a good enough reason in my opinion, but still...

On Dec 21, 2009, at 2:53 AM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL wrote:

> OK. Karlsruhe server time-outs on me, so no chance to get enlightened by checking that thread. Please indulge me: the one short compelling reason why we don't want to say "when two signals are present use this one and ignore the other" instead of "when two signals are present - abort connection" - is...?
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tls-bounces@ietf.org <tls-bounces@ietf.org>
> To: Steve Checkoway <s@pahtak.org>
> Cc: tls@ietf.org <tls@ietf.org>
> Sent: Sun Dec 20 17:39:47 2009
> Subject: Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
> 
> Steve Checkoway wrote:
>> 
>> My point was merely that publication and subsequent implementation of  
>> the fix is more important than worrying about the specifics of what  
>> happens when two signals are used (as long as it is clearly specified,  
>> of course). Others may feel differently.
> 
> http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/documents/1827
> 
> -Martin
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> 
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email