Jack Lloyd sed: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:06:10PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > > victor sherbinin wrote: > > >I'm wondering whether generation of SSL session ID has to be based on > > >random numbers. In my system, it would be more comfortable for me to > > >generate a sequentially incrementing 64-bit or 128-bit session ID, > > >with some constant padding. Does this violate the security of SSL in > > >any way? [ ... ] > The only problem I can think of is someone reconnecting for that session and > then sending junk, so the session is invalidated. This will cause a > performance > hit when the legit client reconnects, and that's about it AFAICT. And if you > want to DoS a SSL server, it seems better to establish a ton of connections > and > terminate each one after sending the client key exchange message, which will > probably make their CPU(s) very unhappy doing all the RSA decrypts.
Also, if SSL sessions are established as sequential numbers, it would be relatively easy for an attacker to use this information to infer your server load (e.g. connect every hour and compare the numbers.) You may or may not care about an attacker discovering this information, depending on usage, but in general you don't want the protocol to expose more than it needs to. - Marc ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
