Christian Huitema <huit...@huitema.net> writes: >Would it be possible to engineer a hidden channel in the TLS 1.3 Hello? I bet >that's quite doable. I am sure that fields like "opaque Random[32]" or "opaque >legacy_session_id<0..32>" could be used creatively, and there are other fields >in common extensions that could also be of service.
I'd thought about that too, thus my comment about subliminal signalling, the problem is that if you've got a standardised subliminal message than it's not really a subliminal message any more. Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
