Below a long list of comments, generally minor. The document is
already very good - we're making great progress!
The record length field is limited by encrypted-length+2048.
Shouldn't it be 1024? - "Each AEAD cipher MUST NOT produce an
expansion of greater
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 06:22:04AM -0400, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Below a long list of comments, generally minor. The document is
already very good - we're making great progress!br
The record length field is limited by encrypted-length+2048.
Shouldn't it be 1024? - Each
On Monday, August 17, 2015 06:22:04 am Yaron Sheffer wrote:
The record length field is limited by encrypted-length+2048. Shouldn't it be
1024? - Each AEAD cipher MUST NOT produce an expansion of greater than 1024
bytes.
See: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/55
Handshake_failure
On 08/11/2015 02:05 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
Clemens Hlauschek clemens.hlausc...@rise-world.com writes:
I published a paper today on KCI-attacks in TLS. This might be of interest to
the TLS WG.
https://www.usenix.org/conference/woot15/workshop-program/presentation/hlauschek
Some
Hi there,
Sean Turner (turn...@ieca.com) invites you to participate in the
Doodle poll Fall '15 TLS Interim.
This is a doodle poll for a 2-day TLS interim meeting. We're
currently planning for Seattle, Washington. The exact location in
Seattle is still TBD, but we've already got two offers.
On Sunday 09 August 2015 16:41:19 dott...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a question regarding the handshake message length.
The 'decode_error' alert in TLS 1.2 is defined as:
decode_error
A message could not be decoded because some field was out of the
specified range or the
So apart from being an interesting paper, it also points out (yet again) that
TLS has wy too many baggage suites and mechanisms that provide nothing but
an attack vector (it's not unique in this regard, other protocols also carry
around a vast amount of baggage and unnecessary flexibility
I'm sorry to insist, but What did you mean by transport level connection
? For me UDP was a connectionless protocol.
Simon
Le 31/07/2015 18:53, Eric Rescorla a écrit :
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Simon Bernard
cont...@simonbernard.eu mailto:cont...@simonbernard.eu wrote:
Thx.
Please see RFC 6347 S 4.2.8
-Ekr
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Simon Bernard cont...@simonbernard.eu
wrote:
I'm sorry to insist, but What did you mean by transport level connection ?
For me UDP was a connectionless protocol.
Simon
Le 31/07/2015 18:53, Eric Rescorla a écrit :
On
On Monday 17 August 2015 15:02:46 Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 06:22:04AM -0400, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Below a long list of comments, generally minor. The document is
already very good - we're making great progress!br
The record length field is limited
I re-readed this paragraph and it's still not clear, what did you mean
by connection at transport layer for UDP.
I well understand that if a server receive a clientHello with epoch=0,
this means that a new handshake should be done.
But I still don't know what happends in a ResumeHandshake
On 17 August 2015 at 05:02, Ilari Liusvaara ilari.liusva...@elisanet.fi wrote:
Actually, I think both should be 256 (256-byte expansion from AEAD
is already quite much).
Pull request or it didn't happen ;)
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:38:54PM +, Peter Gutmann wrote:
One thing that I'd really like to know is that given the non-PFS (EC)DH suites
were obviously a dumb idea and barely supported by anything (not just in terms
of TLS code, no public CA I know of will issue the required X9.42 certs,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 06:22:04AM -0400, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
* Server Configuration: how does the client know to whom the
configuration applies? For example if I connected to
*.example.com (a wildcard cert) and now I connect to
srv.example.com, should I use the
Expect? No. That you sent an email is already highly useful.
A PR makes feedback even more useful. For truly trivial stuff, rolling
them up into a single PR is probably even more so.
On Aug 17, 2015 12:01 PM, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com wrote:
My original mail had some 15 comments,
15 matches
Mail list logo
