Re: [9front] [PATCH] libsec: add minimal support for the tls renegotiation extension

[hiro <23hiro@gmail.com>]

did you try explaining this to "The OpenSSL developers" ?

also, is there no way in openssl to turn off this behavior?

it seems like an industry-wide sabotage effort.

On 1/23/23, Anthony Martin <ality@pbrane.org> wrote:
> hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> once said:
>> your explanation of their secondary reasoning is good. the original
>> assumptions that led to this extension are still invalid.
>
> The IETF TLS group had a lengthy discussion¹ about this
> problem back in 2009 when Marsh Ray described his attacks².
>
> Martin Rex said:
>
> 	I can understand what it says, but I _really_ dislike it.
>
> 	The root of the problem is servers that perform (or at least
> 	allow) TLS renegotiations and make flawed assumptions about
> 	what a successful TLS renegotiation means for the data
> 	previously received.
>
> 	What you're essentially asking for, is that a client should no
> 	longer talk TLS to _any_ Server that doesn't support the new
> 	extension. Not even to the good ones that neither offer nor
> 	support renegotiation.
>
> 	This is discriminating against servers that have been playing
> 	safe!
>
> 	Essentially we are going to hold TLS clients and the installed
> 	base of good Servers responsible for the broken Servers out
> 	there. That feels very wrong.
>
> Eric Rescorla responded:
>
> 	I'm not recommending that clients do that. What I'm trying to
> 	say is that *if* a client wants to be totally sure then all it
> 	can do is require the extension. I agree it's impractical (and
> 	probably unwise) to suggest that they actually behave that
> 	way.
>
> The OpenSSL developers have decided that clients should now
> "do that" by default.
>
> Like it or not, OpenSSL is the apex predator. We can either
> refuse to support v3.0 clients connecting to our servers or
> make the minimal changes necessary to accommodate them. I
> think we all know our place in the ecosystem.
>
> I'm not defending their decision. I just fixed the problem
> months ago and moved on with my life. I was checking in to see
> if you guys still wanted the patch or not.
>
> Cheers,
>   Anthony
>
> 1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/N7EcRpvK2ENs5IwWYv2p7nrUG8w/
> 2.
> https://web.archive.org/web/20091107111709/http://www.extendedsubset.com/
>