The surprise is that breaking one key also yields the ability to truncate 
traffic protected with another key. We agree that we don't have any 
particularly scary way to exploit it against the current draft, but we'd much 
prefer handshake encryption not to depend on 0RTT, and application data 
protection not to depend on handshake encryption.

With our proposed change, the main point to keep in mind is that, by design, 
the TLS 1.3 record layer does not prevent suffix truncations. Instead, TLS 
prevents prefix truncations at the protocol layer, by sending an unambiguous 
final message with each record key:  end_of_early_data; finished; and 
close_notify.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thom...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 17 December 2015 23:39
To: Cedric Fournet <four...@microsoft.com>
Cc: tls@ietf.org; Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <an...@microsoft.com>; Karthikeyan 
Bhargavan <karthik.bharga...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [tls13-spec] resetting the sequence number to zero for each 
record key. (#379)

So the actual impact here is that an attacker who has compromised a key can 
introduce a gap.  Aren't there other options available to such an attacker?  
Scarier options?

On 18 December 2015 at 07:01, Cedric Fournet <four...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> We propose to revert this change (that is, to reset the sequence 
> number each time a new key is installed, as in TLS 1.2). If the 
> chaining is still required for some other reason, one could instead 
> include the old sequence number in the new key derivation (or the new 
> key's additional data, but we believe this is no longer an option).

Even with my question above, this seems reasonable to me.  I'll note that 
chaining in the way you describe would require that the rekey message (the last 
message of the previous epoch) would need to be retransmitted in DTLS.  That 
seems more brittle, but we probably want to retransmit anyway, since that would 
let use remove the explicit epoch from DTLS packets.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to