BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Heartbleed and UDP
- Subject: [Discuss] Heartbleed and UDP
- From: smallm at panix.com (Mike Small)
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:26:22 -0400
- In-reply-to: <bac77156cd4b451292455920895af792@CO2PR04MB684.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> (Edward Ned Harvey's message of "Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:46:34 +0000")
- References: <20140423174046.GP3247@dragontoe.org> <53580798.6040309@gmail.com> <li6zjjbyi3c.fsf@panix5.panix.com> <535813B2.5030401@gmail.com> <li6fvl3ye8a.fsf@panix5.panix.com> <53582B40.80200@gmail.com> <li67g6fyc39.fsf@panix5.panix.com> <5358547E.1060508@gmail.com> <li6eh0mq2vz.fsf@panix5.panix.com> <53595455.4080409@gmail.com> <bac77156cd4b451292455920895af792@CO2PR04MB684.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
"Edward Ned Harvey (blu)" <blu at nedharvey.com> writes: >> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss- >> bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Tom Metro >> >> > It may be dumb that the spec says the payload has to be variable or >> > even that there's a heartbeat requirement at all for the TCP case... >> >> I've been wondering about the latter point as well, and I haven't yet >> heard any explanations. (I also didn't get why the payload varied, but >> that's a minor point.) >> >> For those not aware, the heartbeat feature was added to facilitate >> running TLS over UDP, where there is a need to exchange some data >> periodically to keep NAT port mappings active. > > You guys seem to think that TCP doesn't require any kind of keepalive? > If that is your belief, it's incorrect (at least sometimes). While > your endpoints might not need a keepalive on TCP, and certain (dumb) > firewalls use static port mappings rather than randomly generated > stateful port mappings, and therefore the dumb firewalls might not > need a keepalive either... There certainly are a lot of firewalls > that maintain mapping tables of the internal sockets to external > socket, and will not (cannot) remember those indefinitely. So they > will timeout inactive connections, normally within a few minutes. I don't know, the criticism I'd read elsewhere was that it would be better handled at a different layer, improving existing TCP keepalives or leaving it to the application. I know next to nothing about network programming. It just sounded unappealing at a superficial level that there be another keepalive in TLS if TCP keepalive exists (but is too infrequent on Linux to suit NAT routers?). OpenBSD's ripped the feature out, so we'll see if there's fallout, at least for their uses.
- References:
- [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- From: invalid at pizzashack.org (Derek Martin)
- [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- From: smallm at panix.com (Mike Small)
- [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- From: smallm at panix.com (Mike Small)
- [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- From: smallm at panix.com (Mike Small)
- [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- From: smallm at panix.com (Mike Small)
- [Discuss] Heartbleed and UDP
- From: tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)
- [Discuss] Heartbleed and UDP
- From: blu at nedharvey.com (Edward Ned Harvey (blu))
- [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] Heartbleed and UDP
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] Heartbleed and UDP
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Good and Bad Crypto
- Index(es):