On 11/26/14, 1:04 AM, Bodo Moeller wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
Section 3.1.3 "Fallback to Lower Versions" is unclear: Does it apply
to the standard, "secure," type of version rollback that is
protected
by the TLS handshake, or does it apply to the non-secure
fallback that
the TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV is designed to protect.
Speaking only for myself, I don't think the authors differentiated
between *how* you might get to TLS 1.0 or SSLv3 - only that you end
up there at all.
In any case TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV is probably too new for us to
recommend it as a best *current* practice.
Not that I'd necessarily disagree with that conclusion, but disabling
SSL 3.0 entirely everywhere is much newer than the SCSV :-)
You might want to consider a non-normative reference to the
TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV draft (so that implementors will look at its current
status).
Noted!
My main complaint with the content of this section of
draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-06, though, is that "fallback" should be spelt
"fall back" when used as a verb. The one-word form ("fallback") is
correct for the noun.
Good point, we'll correct that grammatical oversight.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
