A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security WG of the IETF.
Title : Issues and Requirements for SNI Encryption in TLS
Authors : Christian Huitema
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:24:15PM -0400, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:31 AM Ilari Liusvaara
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 09:21:25AM -0400, Erik Nygren wrote:
> > > Following the discussions in Montreal (as well as with some of the ESNI
> > > authors),
> > > we refac
Hi John,
Reflection attacks are indeed older, but the selfie attack is a bit different.
It's actually a variant of the unknown key share attack. A typical example of
the UKS attack is the one reported on MQV by Kaliski in 2001 (see "An unknown
key-share attack on the MQV key agreement protocol"
> On Sep 23, 2019, at 1:49 PM, Mohit Sethi M
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On the topic of external PSKs in TLS 1.3, I found a publication on the
> Selfie attack: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/347
If I not missing something, eeels like simple misconfiguration.
How is this different from, say, us
Thanks Ben, bit more below...
On 24/09/2019 16:15, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>> So I think the basic ESNI case where there's no
>> name changes nor alt-svc etc would be as below in
>> presentation syntax, am I reading that right?
>>
>>example.com. 7200 IN HTTPSSVC 0 . ( esnikeys="/wHrAh..." )
>>
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 7:32 AM, Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> FWIW, if browsers preferred this to an ESNI RR and
> we could forget the ESNI RR then I'd be ok with that.
> I'm not clear if they do or not though.
Regarding the status of which RR we use, I think the main goal for
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 09:21:25AM -0400, Erik Nygren wrote:
> Following the discussions in Montreal (as well as with some of the ESNI
> authors),
> we refactored the HTTPSSVC draft to make it more general. The hope is that
> it could be an alternative (or replace the need) for a distinct ESNI rec
Hi,
I think these reflection attacks are much older than this. I quick search for
reflection attack security protocol gives a lot of old results, The description
of reflection attack in the following lecture material from 2009 looks just
like the "selfie attack" on TLS 1.3
http://www.cs.bham.ac
Hi Erik,
FWIW, if browsers preferred this to an ESNI RR and
we could forget the ESNI RR then I'd be ok with that.
I'm not clear if they do or not though. In the meantime,
assuming this went ahead instead of or in addition
to an ESNI RR, I've a few questions below...
On 24/09/2019 14:21, Erik Nyg
* we refactored the HTTPSSVC draft to make it more general. The hope is
that
* it could be an alternative (or replace the need) for a distinct ESNI
record.
I am strongly opposed to two ways of doing the same thing. I will be taking a
close look at this, but I hope that the folks heavi
On 23/09/2019, 18:50, "TLS on behalf of Mohit Sethi M" wrote:
Hi all,
On the topic of external PSKs in TLS 1.3, I found a publication on the
Selfie attack: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/347
Perhaps this was already discussed on the list. I thought that sharing
it
Following the discussions in Montreal (as well as with some of the ESNI
authors),
we refactored the HTTPSSVC draft to make it more general. The hope is that
it could be an alternative (or replace the need) for a distinct ESNI record.
The draft generalizes to a protocol-agnostic SVCB record, but al
12 matches
Mail list logo
