On Monday 28 December 2015 21:08:10 Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 01:41 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > if the rekey doesn't allow the application to change authentication
> > tokens (as it now stands), then rekey is much more secure than
> > renegotiation was in TLS <= 1.2
>
> You still have
On 01/04/2016 12:59 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Monday 28 December 2015 21:08:10 Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 12/21/2015 01:41 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
>>> if the rekey doesn't allow the application to change authentication
>>> tokens (as it now stands), then rekey is much more secure than
>>> reneg
On 12/28/2015 10:09 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> When the key is changed, the change procedure should involve new randomness.
>
> I don't think this is necessary, and I don't think the common crypto
> expertise agrees with you, either. But I am not a cryptographer, maybe one of
> the ones on this l
On Monday 04 January 2016 13:02:57 Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 12:59 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > On Monday 28 December 2015 21:08:10 Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> On 12/21/2015 01:41 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> >>> if the rekey doesn't allow the application to change
> >>> authentication
> >>>
On 01/04/2016 01:19 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
>> Dealing with this during the initial handshake is fine. But
>> supporting direction-switching after that is *really* difficult.
>
> yes, this is a bit more problematic, especially for one-sided transfers.
> For example, when one side is just sendin
Hello All,
Please excuse if this topic has been previously discussed. I have a question
about TCP Keep Alives.
Section 5 of draft-ietf-tls-tls13-11 reads:
"Three protocols that use the TLS Record Protocol are described in this
document: the TLS Handshake Protocol, the Alert Protocol, and the
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:45 AM, wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Please excuse if this topic has been previously discussed. I have a
>> question about TCP Keep Alives.
>>
>> Section 5 of draft-ietf-tls-tls13-11 reads:
>>
>> "Three protocols that use the TLS Record Protocol are described in this
>>
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:45 AM, wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Please excuse if this topic has been previously discussed. I have a question
> about TCP Keep Alives.
>
> Section 5 of draft-ietf-tls-tls13-11 reads:
>
> "Three protocols that use the TLS Record Protocol are described in this
> document:
TCP keep alives are handled by the TCP stack and not given to TLS or as
Watson said invisible to TLS.
Roland
Am 04.01.2016 um 16:59 schrieb nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:45 AM, wrote:
Hello All,
Please excuse if this topic has been previously discussed. I hav
Thank you all for your help.
Nalini Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
(831) 659-8360
- Original Message -
From: Roland Zink
To: tls@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [TLS] TCP Keep Alive Question: draft-ietf-tls-tls13-11
TCP keep alives are ha
On Thursday 24 December 2015 01:04:59 Christian Huitema wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 3:05 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >> Similarly, in the HKDF-Expand-Label, do we assume a final null byte
> >> for the "label"?>
> > No. I wonder if we should instead add the '\0' explicitly in the
> > 4.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Thursday 24 December 2015 01:04:59 Christian Huitema wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 3:05 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > >> Similarly, in the HKDF-Expand-Label, do we assume a final null byte
> > >> for the "label"?>
> > > No. I wo
> The idea is to make this prefix-free. I added it as an explicit byte but
> would be ok with a different separator as long as we banned it from the
> context strings.
Perhaps explain that rationale in the doc?
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https:/
On Monday 04 January 2016 09:44:57 Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Hubert Kario
wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 December 2015 01:04:59 Christian Huitema wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 3:05 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > > >> Similarly, in the HKDF-Expand-Label, do we
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Monday 04 January 2016 09:44:57 Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Hubert Kario
> wrote:
> > > On Thursday 24 December 2015 01:04:59 Christian Huitema wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 3:05 PM, Eric Resco
On 5 January 2016 at 05:03, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Ask and ye shall receive: http://tlswg.github.io/tls13-spec/#digital-signing
>
> "Following that padding is a context string used to disambiguate signatures
> for different purposes.
> The context string will be specified whenever a digitally-sign
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Martin Thomson
wrote:
> On 5 January 2016 at 05:03, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Ask and ye shall receive:
> http://tlswg.github.io/tls13-spec/#digital-signing
> >
> > "Following that padding is a context string used to disambiguate
> signatures
> > for different purp
17 matches
Mail list logo
