[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: tlsverifyclient security implications
- To: Emmanuel Dreyfus <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: tlsverifyclient security implications
- From: Philip Guenther <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:25:47 -0700
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sendmail.com; s=spork.dkim; t=1251127552; bh=4f2tKlhmR9kfpCl0EYHENO7xJpMeLVd85NEL HP8wBXQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KWevXx9ttg99mav9ZGxJkyYoDf 4aQBckbzdviJBqSk6x0KA4kwdpqR3VQuHfr7KAg4XBpY0KNLJz1uwRfwhgYRO3rt6cD 6Ygbv0EaSZChxGgb30Y6Z3VNcXkwxmMoXDOee13GxQILoB/SUdqMBGr43rrc9KdeeC2 9pzooIj1TCE=
- In-reply-to: <1j4yite.1frdqobck6y0rMemail@example.com>
- References: <1j4yite.1frdqobck6y0rMfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSO 1167 2008-08-23)
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> Howard Chu <email@example.com> wrote:
> > But certificates are not a required element for encryption of a
> > connection - after all, TLS also supports anonymous Diffie-Hellman key
> > exchange.
> Sure, but encryption without authentication makes little sense, as you
> don't know who you are securely speaking to: you can get an encrypted
> link to a man in the middle.
Heh, I have this vision of libldap changing the default cipher suite based
on the TLS_VERIFY setting, such that any setting that doesn't do complete
validation of certs would have the library prefer to use an anonymous
cipher suite instead.
"You're not actually protecting yourself against MitM attacks, so we're
enabling the lower-latency anonymous suites."
(...at least my memory is that the ADH handshake is cheaper than the RSA