Hi,

Thanks for the replies guys, I understand your viewpoint. I'm just
worried that in the future the knobs for corner cases like deliberately
turning on NULL won't be in the software/specs at all. If you are in a
scenario where you can't encrypt and NULL ciphers can't be used because
the software/specs don't support it, then you can't use TLS at all, not
even for providing integrity and authentication.

I did notice the wordings that limit the applicability of the BCP in
these kinds of cases. Anyway there's a difference between intentionally
running no crypto and running a so-so crypto like RC4 with TLS; if you
intentionally run crypto to provide confidentiality you might as well
run the best you can.

  Tapio

On 22.12.2014 2:51, Ralph Holz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> +1 to Rich's answer. @Tapio, we've discussed this extensively between
> members of the TLS WG and UTA WG, to the considerable chagrin of some, and
> managed to reach a compromise everyone could live with.
> 
> The current version is very carefully worded to allow operators to deviate
> from the BCP in cases as you describe, while making it clear that they are
> not following a best practice anymore and are on their own. We cannot list
> all potential corner cases where deviating may be sensible, and I think we
> should maintain that a Best Practice includes forbidding NULL.
> 
> BTW, with other IETF efforts to forbid RC4 on the grounds that it is
> insecure, it seems curious that one would allow NULL in a Best Practice.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> On 22 December 2014 at 10:14, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>
>>> So the draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-08 section 4.1 first MUST NOT would in my
>>> view be better as SHOULD NOT, with a rationale acknowledging those cases
>>> where you don't want or can't have confidentiality.
>>
>> No, the fact that there are places where you can't/won't do data privacy
>> should not weaken the case that doing this is, in fact, a best practice.
>>
>> Not everyone and everything can do best practices.  If they could, they
>> would be common, not best.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
> 

_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

Reply via email to