Subject: [TLS] popularity of truncated MAC TLS extension

From: Martin Rex <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:36:28 +0100 (MET)

Which implementations support the truncated MAC extension
from rfc6066 (first published as rfc3546)?

I was forwarded the following URL:

http://www.rhul.ac.uk/aboutus/newsandevents/news/newsarticles/cryptographersbelievesizedoesmattertostaysafeonline.aspx

about the paper
   "Tag Size Does Matter: Attacks and Proofs for the TLS Record Protocol"
   Kenneth G. Paterson, Thomas Ristenpart, and Thomas Shrimpton

I don't know whether it is due my lack of sleep, but
I found the paper slightly difficult to read.
I don't currently feel like I have to be afraid of anything.

-Martin

---

From: Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:18:03 +1300

Martin Rex <[email-masked]> writes:

>Which implementations support the truncated MAC extension from rfc6066 (first
>published as rfc3546)?

According to the TLS comparison table set up about a year ago, none of them
do.

(This would make it one of the few successful cases of the cordon sanitaire
applied to crypto protocols).

Peter.