Sorry for the delay.
Two comments about the property name.
I don't see the jdk.tls *System* Property prefix used anywhere else,
except as a *Security* properties:
jdk.tls.rejectClientInitializedRenego
Otherwise, I think we should stick to one of the current namespace.
jsse. (my preference since this is expected across
other JDKs)
sun.security.ssl.
Regarding rejectClientInitializedRenego, I think the word "Initiated"
more succinctly captures the intent of this property, rather than
"Initalized." And as long as the word "Renegotiation" is, it should
probably be spelled out completely. AFAIK, we rarely abbreviate
external names like this.
Same "initiated" comment about the variable name in your codereview, but
I don't care much about Renogo.
ServerHandshaker.java
=====================
283: My initial thought was a no_renegotiation(100) warning, but that
allows the client to decide what to do, rather than the server terminating.
This TLS logic decision is not straightforward, so this needs commenting.
379: since you're making changes here.
response->respond
Since you already have CCC approval and are ready to putback, I would
suggest putting back now, and let's file another CCC to change the name.
That should be a no-brainer.
Thanks!
Brad
On 5/29/2013 7:05 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Got it. Yes, this fix is addressing a different issue from you mentioned
below.
Thanks,
Xuelei
On 5/30/2013 9:53 AM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Am 30.05.2013, 02:18 Uhr, schrieb Xuelei Fan <xuelei....@oracle.com>:
2381456
Would you mind send me the link of the bug, or the code review request
mail? I may miss some mails about this direction.
I am afraid I cant sent the link, the Bug is in review state and
therefore not visible for me. It was acknowledged 2012-11-12, see
attached. I guess the link would be
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=2381456 (not sure if
the numbers are the same in the new bug tool).
Good suggestion. Oracle provider of JSSE had addressed the TLS
renegotiation issue in JDK 1.4.2 update 26, JDK 1.5.0 update 24 and JDK
6u 19 around the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010. Here is the
readme of the fix:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/tlsreadme2-176330.html.
Thats a different problem, I was thinking about preventing execessive
client initiated renegotiations. This is for example CVE-2011-1473 from
THC.
You mentioned industry will move to a secure handshake - are you
aware of any initiative in that direction?
See http://www.rfc.org/rfc/rfc5746.txt. As far as I know, nearly all
major vendors of SSL protocols has support RFC5746.
Ok, but thats a different issue. I was expecting 7188658 to address
another point, but I might be wrong.
I understand that as of Oracle policy we cannot discuss it. Even if this
is a very well known issue. :-/
Greetings
Bernd
