[anonsec] 3401 and highjacking

[Nicolas Williams]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 06:18:23PM -0500, Stephen Kent wrote:
> >None of these are solved by SSL; SSL has corresponding solutions for the
> >first three, but in no case does it protect the transport connection.
> 
> You are right that SSL/TLS does not protect the transport layer, but 
> that was not what you asked me to address via that list.

It's session protection, but it's meant to seem like transport
protection.

> >I.e., what is the motivation for BTNS that does not include - if not
> >focus - on transport protection?
> 
> Channel binding functionality does not explicitly demand transport 
> layer protection.

Channel binding demans channels to bind to.  Such channels must: a)
provide adequate (for the cb app) protection for data sent over it, b)
provide a way to cryptographically bind to it.

> My recollection from the BOF was that only some of the cited 
> motivations for BTNS explicitly cite transport layer protection. When 
> applications want to use lower layer security mechanisms to enable 
> higher performance via off-loading crypto to a different processor, 
> that can be achieved via SSL/TLS, for example.

Yes, that's my motivation.

> I think the crux of our possible disagreement is that you see every 
> BTNS motivation as demanding protection for the transport layer 
> protocol, whole I see only one of cited motivations as emphasizing 
> this requirement.

We must be converging -- your disagreements with either Joe or myself
are more and more matters of degree :)

Nico
--