Re: [TLS] Comments on TLS identity protection

[badra <badra@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Pasi,

Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> And why would anyone care about this? (Note that your proposal doesn't
> help against intentional denial-of-service attacks either, only
> accidental misconfiguration.)
>
>   

does no one care about his server consuming amounts of CPU to do, among 
others, two sets of crypto-computations for nothing?
I didn't say the proposal helps againt MITM. I said double handshake 
raises security considerations regarding MITM, when the proposal does't 
raise new security considerations.

> What configuration? A TLS server that supports both privacy and no
> privacy doesn't need any configuration options to do so (it does
> need the code to do double handshake, but new code would be required
> for your proposal as well). A TLS client might concievably have 
> configuration option "require privacy", but this applies to your 
> proposal as well.
>   

Many mechanisms can be designed to add client privacy to TLS, but the 
question arises: which one is more efficient and preferment? Haven't 
many documents been originally approved for easy deployment and 
optimization reasons?

> Best regards,
> Pasi
>
>   

Best regards,
Badra


_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls