Subject: Re: [hybi] Flexibility should be a design consideration

From: Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 16:09:53 +0100

On 28 December 2010 12:33, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> Nobody has given a technical reason to not just mask the payloads?
>> why not?    Is the only objection that this gives us the flexibility
>> to have optional or alternate masking?   that is a pretty poor reason.
>
> Really? I thought at least one person mentioned that they were worried about
> the attacker controlling extensions. Regardless, I think that's clearly a
> technical
> reason.

I don't understand why attackers controlling extensions is a technical
reason to mask the framing?

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 07:18:59 -0800

It's a reason to mask the extensions.

-Ekr

---

From: Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 17:19:31 +0100

> It's a reason to mask the extensions.

Sure, and I'm not opposed to that.  If the masking key is placed in
the extension data space, then it can can apply to all extensions data
after the key.  If the key is in the framing header, then it can apply
to all extension data.

I still have not seen any reason to mask the actual framing and I've
given several good reasons why not to mask the framing - which are
independent of the questions about optional or not, extension or not.

regards