View source on Github

If you are using Warp TLS version 3.1.1 or earlier and the tls library version 1.3.1 or earlier, try the SSL Server Test provided by QUALYS SSL LABS. I'm sure that your server will get rating F and you will get disappointed. Here is a list of failed items:

Secure Renegotiation Not supported ACTION NEEDED Secure Client-Initiated Renegotiation Supported DoS DANGER Insecure Client-Initiated Renegotiation Supported INSECURE Downgrade attack prevention No, TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV not supported Forward Secrecy With some browsers Session resumption (caching) No (IDs assigned but not accepted)

Is the quality of the tls library low? The answer is NO. The code is really readable. But some small features were missing unfortunately. This article describes how Aaron Friel and I added such features to get an A rating.

If you are not interested in technical details, just upgrade Warp TLS to version 3.1.2 and the tls library to version 1.3.2. Your server automatically will get an A rating, or a T rating in the case of a self-signed certificate.

Secure Renegotiation

Secure Renegotiation Not supported ACTION NEEDED

The original TLS 1.2 renegotiation defined in RFC 5246 is now considered insecure because it is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. RFC 5746 defines the "renegotiation_info" extension to authenticate both sides. The tls library implemented this but the result was "Not supported". Why?

The SSL Server Test uses TLS_EMPTY_RENEGOTIATION_INFO_SCSV , an alternative method defined in RFC 5746, to check this item. So, I modified the tls library to be aware of this virtual cipher suite:

Secure Renegotiation Supported

Client-Initiated Renegotiation

Secure Client-Initiated Renegotiation Supported DoS DANGER Insecure Client-Initiated Renegotiation Supported INSECURE

A typical scenario of renegotiation is as follows: a user is browsing some pages over TLS. Then the user clicks a page which requires the client certificate in TLS. In this case, the server sends the TLS HelloRequest to start renegotiation so that the client can send the client certificate through the renegotiation phase.

A client can also initiate renegotiation by sending the TLS ClientHello . But neither secure renegotiation (RFC 5746) nor insecure renegotiation (RFC 5246) should not be allowed from the client side because of DOS attacks.

I added a new parameter supportedClientInitiatedRenegotiation to the Supported data type, whose default value is False . This modification results in:

Secure Client-Initiated Renegotiation No Insecure Client-Initiated Renegotiation No

Downgrade attack prevention

Downgrade attack prevention No, TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV not supported

Downgrade attack is a bad technique to force a client and a server to use a lower TLS version even if higher TLS versions are available. Some clients fall back to a lower TLS version if the negotiation of a higher TLS version fails. An active attacker can cause network congestion or something to make the negotiation failed.

To prevent this, RFC 7507 defines Fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value, TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV . A client includes this virtual cipher suite to the cipher suite proposal when falling back. If the corresponding server finds TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV and higher TLS versions are supported, the server can reject the negotiation to prevent the downgrade attack.

I implemented this feature and the evaluation results in:

Downgrade attack prevention Yes, TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV supported

For your information, you can test your server with the following commands:

% openssl s_client -connect <ipaddr>:<port> -tls1 % openssl s_client -connect <ipaddr>:<port> -tls1 -fallback_scsv

Forward Secrecy

Forward Secrecy With some browsers

Forward Secrecy can be achieved with ephemeral Diffie Hellman (DHE) or ephemeral elliptic curve Diffie Hellman (ECDHE). Warp TLS version 3.1.1 sets supportedCiphers to:

[ TLSExtra.cipher_ECDHE_RSA_AES128GCM_SHA256 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_RSA_AES128GCM_SHA256 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_RSA_AES256_SHA256 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_RSA_AES128_SHA256 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_RSA_AES256_SHA1 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_RSA_AES128_SHA1 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_DSS_AES128_SHA1 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_DSS_AES256_SHA1 , TLSExtra.cipher_AES128_SHA1 , TLSExtra.cipher_AES256_SHA1 ]

This is evaluated as "With some browsers". SSL Labs: Deploying Forward Secrecy suggests that TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA and TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA are missing. Aaron Friel added the two cipher suites to the tls library and also added them in Warp TLS:

[ TLSExtra.cipher_ECDHE_RSA_AES128GCM_SHA256 , TLSExtra.cipher_ECDHE_RSA_AES128CBC_SHA256 -- here , TLSExtra.cipher_ECDHE_RSA_AES128CBC_SHA -- here , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_RSA_AES128GCM_SHA256 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_RSA_AES256_SHA256 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_RSA_AES128_SHA256 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_RSA_AES256_SHA1 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_RSA_AES128_SHA1 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_DSS_AES128_SHA1 , TLSExtra.cipher_DHE_DSS_AES256_SHA1 , TLSExtra.cipher_AES128_SHA1 , TLSExtra.cipher_AES256_SHA1 ]

This configuration is evaluated as "With modern browsers".

Forward Secrecy With modern browsers

Note that the article also suggests TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA . I know that adding this cipher suite results in "Yes (with most browsers)" But we don't want to support 3DES.

Session resumption

Session resumption (caching) No (IDs assigned but not accepted)

Session resumption is a mechanism to reduce the overhead of key exchange. An exchanged key is associated with a session ID and stored in both the client and the server side. The next time the client sends the TLS ClientHello message, the client can specify the session ID previously used. So, the client and the server are able to reuse the exchanged key.

The tls library supports this mechanism. That's why the result says "IDs assgined". Since Warp TLS does not make use of SessionManager , it also says "but not accepted".

I'm not planning to implement this simple session resumption in Warp TLS since the server would need to have states of exchanged keys. Rather, I would like to implement the stateless TLS session resumption defined in RFC 5077.

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Kazuho Oku for giving useful information about the secure renegotiation.