Subject: RE: [TLS] Serious crypto problem fixed by envelope HMAC methodinstead of currently used prefix

From: "Blumenthal, Uri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:31:04 -0500

>> SSLv3 used a variant of the original HMAC (pre-2104).
>> IIRC, SSLv2 didn't use HMAC and *did* have an extension
>> attack, but that's hardly our problem at this point.
>
> But does SSL v2 has the lenth field protection
> (as we discussed) against an extension attack?
> Can somebody send me the function used in SSL v2?

As SSLv2 is a technically-dead protocol (that is not thrown out from the
code only for compatibility reasons), how relevant is it now???

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:52:31 -0500

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:31:04 -0500
"Blumenthal, Uri" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As SSLv2 is a technically-dead protocol (that is not thrown out from
> the code only for compatibility reasons), how relevant is it now???
> 
Agreed.  SSLv2 has other flaws beyond that.  Besides, if memory serves,
IE7 doesn't include it, which means that it's quite irrelevant going
forward.

Finally -- we're defining TLS versions; we're not trying to repair
flaws in SSLv2 or even v3.  I don't see the relevance of the question
to this WG.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb