From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 22738 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2023 21:21:48 -0000
Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 28 Jan 2023 21:21:48 -0000
Received: from mimir.eigenstate.org ([206.124.132.107]) by 9front; Sat Jan 28 16:20:41 -0500 2023
Received: from stockyard.lan (<unknown> [172.56.161.252])
	by mimir.eigenstate.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id c11733d4 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:20:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <89E8ABAE87CDA231F83E79BA10B1863B@eigenstate.org>
To: 9front@9front.org
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 16:20:36 -0500
From: ori@eigenstate.org
In-Reply-To: <4365133EA2FEAE04696BACCDC2F93979@alice>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: base injection-based interface 
Subject: Re: [9front] [PATCH] libsec: add minimal support for the tls renegotiation extension
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoth Anthony Martin <ality@pbrane.org>:
> OpenSSL 3.0 clients refuse to connect to servers that do not
> support the renegotiation extension (RFC 5746) unless the default
> configuration is changed to allow it. Since we do not support
> renegotiation, we only need to make minor changes to the initial
> handshake to comply with the specification:
> 
> 1. For tlsClient, simply add the proper SCSV to the ClientHello
> cipher list (cf. RFC 5746 § 3.3);
> 
> 2. For tlsServer, respond with an empty renegotiation extension
> in the ServerHello if we received either the SCSV or an empty
> renegotiation extension in the ClientHello.
> 
> Since we close the hand file and never open it after the initial
> handshake, we can rely on tls(3) to send the "no renegotiation"
> alerts if subsequent handshake records are received.
> 

looks good; running this on shithub, will probably commit in the
next day or two assuming I don't run into problems.

thanks!