Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirmation of Consensus on Removing Compression from TLS 1.3

From: Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 03:42:10 +0000

Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]> writes:

>I think this would be a mistake. I would recommend instead to say that
>compression SHOULD be disabled by default. But leave the option in the
>protocol for applications that need compression and are able to mitigate the
>vulnerability. This does NOT include normal Web traffic.

This isn't going to have the effect you think it will.  Anyone who has a clue
about security will treat it as a MUST NOT.  Anyone who doesn't will say
"cool, it does compression too!" and treat it as a SHOULD or MUST.  The only
only way to fix this problem is to remove it entirely.

Peter.

---

From: Bill Frantz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 15:49:14 -0700

It causes security problems.

It adds code to a security module (i.e. TLS).

It can easily and securely be added externally (by separately 
compressing items from different security contexts).

I say nuke it.

Cheers - Bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | If the site is supported by  | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506      | ads, you are the product.    | 16345 
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com |                              | Los Gatos, 
CA 95032