On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:40:46 GMT, Artur Barashev <abaras...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> The current syntax of the jdk.tls.disabledAlgorithms makes it difficult to 
>> disable algorithms that affect both the key exchange and authentication 
>> parts of a TLS cipher suite. For example, if you add "RSA" to the 
>> jdk.tls.disabledAlgorithms security property, it disables all cipher suites 
>> that use RSA, whether it is for key exchange or authentication. If you only 
>> want to disable cipher suites that use RSA for key exchange, the only 
>> workaround is to list the whole cipher suite name, so an exact match is 
>> done, but if there are many cipher suites that use that key exchange 
>> algorithm, this becomes cumbersome.
>
> Artur Barashev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   "Cipher suites must start with TLS_" doc update

Changes requested by mullan (Reviewer).

src/java.base/share/conf/security/java.security line 779:

> 777: # See the specification of "jdk.certpath.disabledAlgorithms" for the
> 778: # syntax of the disabled algorithm string. Additionally, TLS cipher 
> suites
> 779: # can be disabled here using "*" wildcard syntax. For example "TLS_RSA_*"

Suggest not using "here" and instead say "with this property", ex: "... can be 
disabled with this property using ..."

src/java.base/share/conf/security/java.security line 780:

> 778: # syntax of the disabled algorithm string. Additionally, TLS cipher 
> suites
> 779: # can be disabled here using "*" wildcard syntax. For example "TLS_RSA_*"
> 780: # disables all cipher suites that start with "TLS_RSA_". Only the 
> algorithms

s/the algorithms/cipher suites/
s/have/have a/

Can you only have one wildcard and must it have nothing after it? If so, we 
should also state those constraints.

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21841#pullrequestreview-2416743130
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21841#discussion_r1830031486
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21841#discussion_r1830033235

Reply via email to