On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/08/18 14:45, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org
> > <mailto:m...@openssl.org>> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >     On 08/08/18 14:21, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >     > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 02:05:00PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> >     >> Draft 28 defines the inappropriate_fallback alert as follows:
> >     >>
> >     >> inappropriate_fallback  Sent by a server in response to an invalid
> >     >>       connection retry attempt from a client
> >     >>
> >     >> With the introduction of the downgrade protection sentinels it now 
> > seems
> >     >> that an inappropriate fallback could also be detected by the client.
> >     >> Should this wording be changed?
> >     > 
> >     > Well, *fallback* specifically is inherently client-driven; the things 
> > the
> >     > client could detect would be more of an incorrectly negotiated version
> >     > (presumably due to an active attack).
> > 
> >     Consider the scenario where a server supports TLSv1.3/TLSv1.2 but does
> >     not support RFC7507 (TLS Fallback Signalling Cipher Suite Value).
> > 
> >     If the client attempts a TLSv1.3 connection first and fails (e.g. an
> >     active attacker prevented it) and then falls back to TLSv1.2 it would be
> >     able to detect that its fallback attempt was inappropriate when it sees
> >     the downgrade protection sentinels. In that case inappropriate_fallback
> >     seems reasonable.
> > 
> > 
> > I don't think that is the alert I would choose in this circumstance.
> > Probably "illegal_parameter"
> 
> illegal_parameter suggests to me that the peer is misbehaving in some
> way - which isn't the case here? Also it seems strange that we would
> have a more explicit alert than the generic illegal_parameter, that
> seems to precisely describe the scenario (a fallback occurred, and it
> turns out it was inappropriate) but not be able to use it.

Aren't the semantics here "whoops, I made a new connection attempt that
I shouldn't have; let me go back out of that"?  In which case one could
argue even for close_notify...

-Ben

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to