< draft-lvelvindron-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04.txt		draft-lvelvindron-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-05.txt >
	Internet Engineering Task Force L. Velvindron		Internet Engineering Task Force L. Velvindron
	Internet-Draft cyberstorm.mu		Internet-Draft cyberstorm.mu
	Updates: 5246 7525 (if approved) K. Moriarty		Updates: 5246 7525 (if approved) K. Moriarty
	Intended status: Standards Track Dell EMC		Intended status: Standards Track Dell EMC
	Expires: November 14, 2019 May 13, 2019		Expires: November 30, 2019 A. Ghedini
			Cloudflare Inc.
			May 29, 2019
	Deprecating MD5 and SHA-1 signature hashes in TLS 1.2		Deprecating MD5 and SHA-1 signature hashes in TLS 1.2
	draft-lvelvindron-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04		draft-lvelvindron-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in		The MD5 and SHA-1 hashing algorithms are steadily weakening in
	strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in		strength and their deprecation process should begin for their use in
	TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not		TLS 1.2 digital signatures. However, this document does not
	deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection.		deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on November 14, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 12 ¶
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Signature Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. Signature Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3. Certificate Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Certificate Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Server Key Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		4. Server Key Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	5. Certificate Verify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		5. Certificate Verify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	6. Updates to RFC5246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		6. Updates to RFC5246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	7. Updates to RFC7525 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		7. Updates to RFC7525 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	skipping to change at page 3, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 5 ¶
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	2. Signature Algorithms		2. Signature Algorithms
	Clients SHOULD NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in signature_algorithms		Clients SHOULD NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in signature_algorithms
	extension. If a client does not send a signature_algorithms		extension. If a client does not send a signature_algorithms
	extension, then the server MUST abort the handshake and send a		extension, then the server MUST abort the handshake and send a
	handshake_failure alert.		handshake_failure alert.
	3. Certificate Requests		3. Certificate Request
	Servers SHOULD NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in CertificateRequest		Servers SHOULD NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in CertificateRequest
	message.		message.
	4. Server Key Exchange		4. Server Key Exchange
	Servers MUST NOT include MD5 in ServerKeyExchange message. If client		Servers MUST NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in ServerKeyExchange message.
	does receive a MD5 signature in the ServerKeyExchange message it MUST		If client does receive a MD5 or SHA-1 signature in the
	abort the connection with handshake_failure or insufficient_security		ServerKeyExchange message it MUST abort the connection with
	alert.		handshake_failure or insufficient_security alert.
	5. Certificate Verify		5. Certificate Verify
	Clients MUST NOT include MD5 in CertificateVerify message.		Clients MUST NOT include MD5 and SHA-1 in CertificateVerify message.
	6. Updates to RFC5246		6. Updates to RFC5246
	OLD:		OLD:
	In Section 7.4.1.4.1: the text should be revised from " Note: this is		In Section 7.4.1.4.1: the text should be revised from " Note: this is
	a change from TLS 1.1 where there are no explicit rules, but as a		a change from TLS 1.1 where there are no explicit rules, but as a
	practical matter one can assume that the peer supports MD5 and SHA-		practical matter one can assume that the peer supports MD5 and SHA-
	1."		1."
	skipping to change at page 4, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 28 ¶
	8. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	Concerns with TLS 1.2 implementations falling back to SHA-1 is an		Concerns with TLS 1.2 implementations falling back to SHA-1 is an
	issue. This draft updates the TLS 1.2 specification to deprecate		issue. This draft updates the TLS 1.2 specification to deprecate
	support for MD5 and SHA-1 for digital signatures. However, this		support for MD5 and SHA-1 for digital signatures. However, this
	document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection.		document does not deprecate SHA-1 in HMAC for record protection.
	9. Acknowledgement		9. Acknowledgement
	The authors would like to thank Hubert Kario for his help in writing		The authors would like to thank Hubert Kario for his help in writing
	the initial draft. We are also grateful to Martin Thomson and David		the initial draft. We are also grateful to Daniel Migault, Martin
	Cooper.		Thomson and David Cooper for their feedback.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	skipping to change at line 226 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 38 ¶
	Loganaden Velvindron		Loganaden Velvindron
	cyberstorm.mu		cyberstorm.mu
	Rose Hill		Rose Hill
	MU		MU
	Phone: +230 59762817		Phone: +230 59762817
	Email: logan@cyberstorm.mu		Email: logan@cyberstorm.mu
	Kathleen Moriarty		Kathleen Moriarty
	Dell EMC		Dell EMC
			Alessandro Ghedini
			Cloudflare Inc.
End of changes. 9 change blocks.
	12 lines changed or deleted		14 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/