On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:53 PM David Benjamin
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 4:14 PM Subodh Iyengar wrote:
>
>> > Wouldn't this issue also be mitigated by requiring the server to
>> re-authenticate during resumption with the certificate once in a while?
>>
>> I think it's probably just easie
Agreed.
> Subodh
> --
> *From:* David Benjamin
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:52 PM
> *To:* Subodh Iyengar
> *Cc:* Nick Sullivan; tls@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [TLS] ticket lifetimes
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 4:14 PM Subodh Iyengar wro
e ticket lifetime.
Subodh
From: David Benjamin
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:52 PM
To: Subodh Iyengar
Cc: Nick Sullivan; tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] ticket lifetimes
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 4:14 PM Subodh Iyengar
mailto:sub...@fb.com>> wrote:
> Wou
t is willing to make vulnerable to a single session secret.
We'd probably do something similar if we implemented TLS 1.3's
plain psk_ke, but we only do psk_dhe_ke.)
David
> Subodh
> --
> *From:* David Benjamin
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 29, 2019
nt in BoringSSL. 😊
Fantastic. Would it help to have an extension to set a lower bound on this
value, or just make it more painful?
Subodh
From: David Benjamin
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 1:02 PM
To: Nick Sullivan
Cc: Subodh Iyengar; tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TL
tely write that
>> up
>> if people don't think it's the worst idea in the world.
>>
>> Subodh
>> --
>> *From:* Christopher Wood
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 28, 2019 10:13:36 PM
>> *To:* Subodh Iyengar
>> *Cc:* tls@ietf.org
8, 2019 10:13:36 PM
> *To:* Subodh Iyengar
> *Cc:* tls@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [TLS] ticket lifetimes
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:04 PM Subodh Iyengar wrote:
> >
> > > Since clients already store tickets, could they not also store the
> > time of original ticket
ristopher Wood
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 10:13:36 PM
To: Subodh Iyengar
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] ticket lifetimes
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:04 PM Subodh Iyengar wrote:
>
> > Since clients already store tickets, could they not also store the
> time of original ticket iss
uot; you mean the resumed (and renewed)
sessions, then yep!
Best,
Chris
>
> Subodh
>
> From: Christopher Wood
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 9:57 PM
> To: Subodh Iyengar
> Cc: tls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TLS] ticket lifetimes
>
> O
?
That is not just limit it to the scope of the ticket but the entire TLS
session? That would be fine to by me, however might break some folks.
Subodh
From: Christopher Wood
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 9:57 PM
To: Subodh Iyengar
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 9:43 PM Subodh Iyengar wrote:
>
> In TLS 1.3 we added a maximum age to the ticket lifetime to be 7 days. This
> had several original motivations including reducing the time that a ticket is
> reused (for privacy or PFS). Another major motivation for this was to limit
> t
In TLS 1.3 we added a maximum age to the ticket lifetime to be 7 days. This had
several original motivations including reducing the time that a ticket is
reused (for privacy or PFS). Another major motivation for this was to limit the
exposure of servers that use keyless ssl like mechanisms, i.e.
12 matches
Mail list logo
