HI Martin, all, I added another alternative, so let me summarize for everyone the possible paths forward, with links to the corresponding PRs.
1. https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/407: HRRInner and HRROuter (original proposal, deemed too complicated). 2. https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/417: Strengthen language around HRR-sensitive parameters (might be underspecified). 3. https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/423 Signal ECH acceptance after HRR (a simpler alternative to #407). Best, Chris P. On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 7:29 PM Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote: > I've created a few pull requests that make the changes I propose. I think > that the whole suite of related issues are closed as a result. > > The main one is here: > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/417 > There's a bit of rewriting here, but the change is not that large. I > would expect most implementations to be compliant already (it's much more > work not to be). > > The whole set: > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pulls/martinthomson > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, at 12:57, Martin Thomson wrote: > > I just reviewed the proposal to split HelloRetryRequest into outer and > > (encrypted) inner. > > > > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/407/files > > > > I'm strongly opposed to taking the change. It complicates the design > > greatly and unnecessarily. > > > > The existing design has some flaws, but they can be fixed more > > elegantly than this. > > > > (Apologies if this seems a little long. I'm writing down every > > possible argument I can think of, because I can't guarantee that I will > > be coherent at the meeting.) > > > > # HelloRetryRequest Has a Narrow Purpose > > > > Let's first address the key question of what HelloRetryRequest exists > > to do. It exists to ensure that the client and server are able to > > jointly agree on keys to use for the remainder of the handshake. This > > is a very narrow scope. > > > > Furthermore, the particulars of key agreement are public. This is > > important as we can also say that all hidden servers need to use the > > same configuration as it relates to cipher suites, key exchange, and > > related parameters, as the results of negotiation are sent in the clear > > in the ServerHello. > > > > My claim here is that there is no value in protecting any parameter > > that might change in response to HelloRetryRequest. > > > > # Don't Seek Complexity > > > > It is entirely possible to imagine scenarios where an inner ClientHello > > has different preferences from an outer ClientHello. While in theory > > we can construct a design that would support that (the pull request > > does this well enough), to do so only serves to increase complexity. > > It does not address any real use case or problem that I'm aware of. > > > > If we allow for the client to provide different values in inner and > > outer ClientHello messages, then the current design means that the > > client is faced with some ambiguity about which of the two messages a > > HelloRetryRequest applies to. If we try to create an indicator, then > > that leaks. > > > > We could solve the problem by making the protocol more complex. Or we > > could avoid it. > > > > This problem is entirely avoidable. > > > > # Matching Inner and Outer Values > > > > When we get right down to it, there are a very small number of things > > that truly change in response to HelloRetryRequest. And all of these > > changes are to values that do not need confidentiality protection. > > > > The draft lists three fields that change: ciphersuites, key_share, and > > version. From my perspective, changing cipher suites, supported > > groups, or versions would be a big mistake. So what changes is even > > more limited. Just the shares in key_share. > > > > On this basis, a client that offers cipher suites, groups, versions, > > and key shares that are identical in both inner and outer ClientHello > > messages will always receive a HelloRetryRequest that applies equally > > to both messages. > > > > The only adjustment that is acceptable with respect to these fields > > being identical is the addition of TLS 1.2-only options to the outer > > ClientHello (or the removal of the same from the inner ClientHello if > > you prefer it that way around). This is a fine optimization on the > > basis that accepting ECH represents a commitment to support TLS 1.3 (or > > higher). But it is really just an optimization (the draft makes this > > mandatory, which is silly). The client can therefore remove options > > from the inner ClientHello only if it is impossible to select them with > > TLS 1.3 or higher. > > > > For new extensions, if they define a means of adjustment or correction > > via HelloRetryRequest (there is currently just one: password_salt, > > which I haven't examined), then they too need to follow this > > restriction. It's not an onerous one. > > > > Follow this simple constraint and HelloRetryRequest will always apply > > equally to both inner and outer ClientHello and everything works. > > Conveniently, this is more or less exactly what the current draft says. > > Almost. > > > > The draft currently allows inner and outer ClientHello to have > > different types of key share. The way it handles this is terrible: it > > recommends breaking the transcript. To me, that seems like it would > > only serve to open the protocol up to downgrade attack. > > > > Incidentally, I don't see a problem with having a different key share > > *value* in inner and outer ClientHello. There's no point in doing that > > unless you believe that these values leak information (they really > > shouldn't), but it wouldn't break this model if a client decided to do > > that. > > > > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/333 appears to be > > concerned about the cookie only applying to one or other ClientHello. > > I don't see how is the case, so I'm just going to say that this is > > fixed by having HelloRetryRequest apply to both inner and outer > > ClientHello messages. If the client receives HelloRetryRequest that > > applies to just one of the two, then the problem is that the client is > > faulty. That would be treated as a programming error as normal (crash, > > open a bug report, send an internal_error alert, etc...). > > > > Then there are the things that more or less have to change in response > > to HelloRetryRequest, but really only because the ClientHello changes: > > padding, pre_shared_key, and ECH itself. For those, we need to address > > a minor inconsistency problem at the level of the core protocol itself. > > > > # Addressing Minor HelloRetryRequest Problems > > > > We do need to fix RFC 8446 rules regarding HelloRetryRequest. David > > already suggested some minute adjustments for that problem in > > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/358 . The short > > version is that extensions can define their own rules for how they > > change after HelloRetryRequest. This is a good amendment, especially > > as it relates to extensions that are not known to the server. > > > > That tweak does have deployment issues, because the original rules have > > been interpreted too literally in some cases, but that should not > > affect ECH specifically. Servers that have this bug won't be able to > > deploy ECH without fixing the bug and that's OK. Other servers will > > only see grease. > > > > The draft currently mandates that greasing values not change after > > HelloRetryRequest, which will avoid this compatibility bug, but also > > reveal the fraud. I can tolerate that small amount of leakage. > > > > # Avoiding HelloRetryRequest > > > > I think that Nick's suggestion for helping avoid HelloRetryRequest by > > placing hints about key shares in DNS SVCB/HTTPS records is a fine one. > > > > I see the arguments about this being about the configuration needing to > > speak for backend servers when the record relates to frontend servers. > > But my perspective here is that you already need to ensure that backend > > servers have a consistent cryptographic support profile; adding a small > > number of frontend servers to the set that need to be made consistent > > isn't that difficult. If this consistency is not possible in some > > deployments, that's understandable, but then it is an optional > > enhancement that won't be available to those deployments, that's all. > > > > Of course, this is an extension that we can pursue separately. > > > > # Conclusion > > > > I'm firmly opposed to splitting HelloRetryRequest. I would like to > > deploy ECH and this doesn't really help with that. > > > > I don't agree that there is a problem that needs to be fixed with the > > current draft. > > > > On the other hand, I can guarantee that this change will delay Firefox > > deployment significantly (that is, for an indefinite period). It would > > require rearchitecting a piece of code that is rarely used already > > (despite being a source of significant complexity) and replacing it > > with code that is even more complex and would include paths that are > > even more lightly used. > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
