Code review request, 7188658 Add possibility to disable client initiated renegotiation

Brad Wetmore bradford.wetmore at oracle.com
Tue Jun 18 19:50:25 PDT 2013


Sorry for the delay.

Two comments about the property name.

I don't see the jdk.tls *System* Property prefix used anywhere else, 
except as a *Security* properties:

     jdk.tls.rejectClientInitializedRenego

Otherwise, I think we should stick to one of the current namespace.

     jsse.               (my preference since this is expected across
                          other JDKs)
     sun.security.ssl.

Regarding rejectClientInitializedRenego, I think the word "Initiated" 
more succinctly captures the intent of this property, rather than 
"Initalized."  And as long as the word "Renegotiation" is, it should 
probably be spelled out completely.  AFAIK, we rarely abbreviate 
external names like this.

Same "initiated" comment about the variable name in your codereview, but 
I don't care much about Renogo.

ServerHandshaker.java
=====================
283:  My initial thought was a no_renegotiation(100) warning, but that 
allows the client to decide what to do, rather than the server terminating.

This TLS logic decision is not straightforward, so this needs commenting.

379:  since you're making changes here.

   response->respond

Since you already have CCC approval and are ready to putback, I would 
suggest putting back now, and let's file another CCC to change the name. 
  That should be a no-brainer.

Thanks!

Brad





On 5/29/2013 7:05 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
> Got it. Yes, this fix is addressing a different issue from you mentioned
> below.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
>
> On 5/30/2013 9:53 AM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>> Am 30.05.2013, 02:18 Uhr, schrieb Xuelei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com>:
>>>> 2381456
>>> Would you mind send me the link of the bug, or the code review request
>>> mail?  I may miss some mails about this direction.
>>
>> I am afraid I cant sent the link, the Bug is in review state and
>> therefore not visible for me. It was acknowledged 2012-11-12, see
>> attached. I guess the link would be
>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=2381456 (not sure if
>> the numbers are the same in the new bug tool).
>>
>>> Good suggestion.  Oracle provider of JSSE had addressed the TLS
>>> renegotiation issue in JDK 1.4.2 update 26, JDK 1.5.0 update 24 and JDK
>>> 6u 19 around the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010.  Here is the
>>> readme of the fix:
>>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/tlsreadme2-176330.html.
>>>
>>
>> Thats a different problem, I was thinking about preventing execessive
>> client initiated renegotiations. This is for example CVE-2011-1473 from
>> THC.
>>
>>>> You mentioned industry will move to a secure handshake - are you
>>>> aware of any initiative in that direction?
>>>>
>>> See http://www.rfc.org/rfc/rfc5746.txt.  As far as I know, nearly all
>>> major vendors of SSL protocols has support RFC5746.
>>
>> Ok, but thats a different issue. I was expecting 7188658 to address
>> another point, but I might be wrong.
>>
>> I understand that as of Oracle policy we cannot discuss it. Even if this
>> is a very well known issue. :-/
>>
>> Greetings
>> Bernd
>


More information about the security-dev mailing list