On Sun, January 31, 2016 10:00 pm, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 1 February 2016 at 16:56, Dan Harkins <dhark...@lounge.org> wrote: >>>>From a protocol perspective, they are the same. The distinction at >>> the protocol level between ECDH_RSA (for example) and ECDH_anon is >>> that ECDH_anon requires a ServerKeyShare message in the same way that >>> ECDHE_RSA does. >> >> So? A static-static, static-ephemeral, and ephemeral-ephemeral >> all look the same from a protocol perspective too but they are >> very different and have very different properties. > > If a tree falls in the forest and no one deletes the private key, is > it static or ephemeral.
If you never use it again then its compromise would only expose that 1 exchange so I'd say it's ephemeral. If you reuse it then it becomes static. But if this problem is because we have code that is not deleting the private keys for the ECDH_anon exchange then I'd say the pull request should be with that codebase to fix that problem. Dan. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
