Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handshake and data messages

2016-06-17 Thread Paterson, Kenny
Hi Ilari, On 15/06/2016 17:23, "TLS on behalf of Ilari Liusvaara" wrote: >On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:44:18AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> On Wed 2016-06-15 04:44:59 -0400, Yoav Nir wrote: >> >> To be clear, we're being asked to trade these things off against each >> other here, but ther

Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handshake and data messages

2016-06-17 Thread Paterson, Kenny
Hi Ilari, On 14/06/2016 20:01, "TLS on behalf of Ilari Liusvaara" wrote: >I too haven't seen an argument (or am I able to construct one >myself) on why using the same key causes more issues than >"more difficult for cryptographers" (without assumptions known >to be false or cause severe problems

Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handshake and data messages

2016-06-17 Thread Martin Rex
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Thu 2016-06-16 11:26:14 -0400, Hubert Kario wrote: >> wasn't that rejected because it breaks boxes that do passive monitoring >> of connections? (and so expect TLS packets on specific ports, killing >> connection if they don't look like TLS packets) > > We're talk

Re: [TLS] Consensus call for keys used in handshake and data messages

2016-06-17 Thread Hugo Krawczyk
I am abstaining on the choice of alternative 1 and 2 since I do not understand enough the engineering considerations and ramifications of the different choices. Also, I have not put any thought into the privacy issues related to hiding content type and I certainly did not do any formal analysis of