On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 00:55:50 CEST Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > the difference in processing that is equal to just few clock cycles is
> > detectable over network[1]
>
> The post you reference actually says the opposite; "20 CPU cycles
I've created a Pull Request that introduces requirement for constant time
processing of padding and an example on how to do it:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1073
On Friday, 11 August 2017 16:11:10 CEST Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> Imagine the following scenario, where the server
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:31:56PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
> I've created a Pull Request that introduces requirement for constant time
> processing of padding and an example on how to do it:
>
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1073
-1
Except doing the depad in constant-time is usele
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 15:54:15 CEST Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:31:56PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > I've created a Pull Request that introduces requirement for constant time
> > processing of padding and an example on how to do it:
> >
> > https://github.com/tlswg/t
I generally agree with Ilari. To recap what I said on the PR:
I think it would be fine to sharpen the point about padding leaking
information and I'd take a short PR for that. I don't believe it's
necessary either to require that it be constant time (for the reasons I
indicated on-list and already
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 00:55:50 CEST Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
>> > the difference in processing that is equal to just few clock cycles is
>> > detectable over network[1]
>>
>> The po
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 18:27:27 CEST Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 00:55:50 CEST Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> >> ... and even today with very low
> >> laten
On 08/14/2017 01:26 PM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:03:08PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
>> Current (21) draft references RFC 6961 in multiple places, in particular
>> * Section 4.4.2:
>> Valid extensions
>> include OCSP Status extensions ([RFC6066] and [RFC6961])
>
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 17:28:22 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I generally agree with Ilari. To recap what I said on the PR:
> I think it would be fine to sharpen the point about padding leaking
> information and I'd take a short PR for that.
I've prepared https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull
