From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Additional network security Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:03:54 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87oarfl7d1.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87lhmkja3h.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <871tobmndd.fsf@lifelogs.com> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417971827 6258 80.91.229.3 (7 Dec 2014 17:03:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 17:03:47 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 07 18:03:42 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XxfFF-0001Eg-7C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:03:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58614 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxfFE-0003RE-IO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:03:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53821) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxfEv-0003Q3-Bv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:03:26 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxfEq-00050i-1P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:03:21 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:53717) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XxfEp-0004zm-NV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:03:15 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XxfEo-0000xk-G7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:03:14 +0100 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:03:14 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 18:03:14 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 49 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:I7lvrQy4sFvBCmPJye7qtZnvLQo= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:179280 Archived-At: On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 17:41:06 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> Given this precedent, I think it would make sense to offer some >> fine-grained control over NSM checks as well, similar to >> `gnutls-verify-error' as I mentioned. We've gone Lispy with the NSM >> configuration, but if we were consistent with the GnuTLS approach, the >> NSM tuning would be simply a string like "paranoid:-crazy" (paranoid but >> not crazy, heh heh). This is still possible: >> >> * map a symbol to its symbol-name >> * parse NSM security levels like GnuTLS priority strings >> * allow setting these strings per host regex >> * PROFIT >> >> WDYT? LMI> I think we should require 100 users demanding this before we implement LMI> it. :-) I am basing it on the way GnuTLS allows users to control things, not inventing something new. Asking for 100 Emacs users to agree on anything will result in: * 3 frameworks and 5 new one-letter packages * 200+ posts arguing about obscure details * at least 8 new bugs filed so I really hope you lower the threshold to "would we use it?". How about extending the GnuTLS priority string to also specify the NSM level, DH bits, etc? So the user would say "NORMAL:NSM(medium,dh=1024)" and we'd cut out all the NSM bits before passing it on to GnuTLS. If there's nothing in the priority string, we'd look at `network-security-level', that would be the out-of-the-box use case. LMI> But as for the defaults, do you agree with putting RC4, SSL low bits on `high'? RC4 should be disallowed on medium IMO. I *think* it already is disallowed in the default GnuTLS priority string. I would disallow SSL 1, 2 on medium and 3 on high. The GnuTLS default for priority string NORMAL is (in preference order) TLS protocols TLS 1.2, TLS1.1, TLS1.0, SSL3.0 according to http://gnutls.org/manual/html_node/Priority-Strings.html so regardless of the NSM level SSL 1 and 2 are dropped by default. Ted