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: Tuning GnuTLS Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:32:56 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87pqikpo6v.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317231326 12723 80.91.229.12 (28 Sep 2011 17:35:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:35:26 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 28 19:35:21 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R8y2S-0001H8-2v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:35:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43194 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8y2R-0002Nm-KG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:35:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42232) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8y2L-0002NJ-Hv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:35:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8y2H-0005bt-CV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:35:13 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:57061) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8y2H-0005bi-6B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:35:09 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R8y2G-0001B1-DJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:35:08 +0200 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.133 ([38.98.147.133]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:35:08 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.133 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:35:08 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 29 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.133 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/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:bIX6oeixC7CVI48ScnTXeFOprmo= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 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:144454 Archived-At: On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 05:23:16 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> We should strive to make TLS connections as painless as possible, and LMI> involving as little user intervention as possible, while preserving a LMI> reasonable level of security. LMI> So far, two failure points have been identified: LMI> 1) Some servers sends a prime with fewer bits than the accepted default. LMI> I think the right thing to do here is to just default LMI> `gnutls-min-prime-bits' to a lower number than the default GnuTLS LMI> number. I don't know what that number should be, but I think people who LMI> want better bits than that can adjust this number upwards. LMI> 2) Servers presenting broken, er, certificates with certain algorithms. LMI> If negotiation with DHE-RSA has failed, then negotiation without that LMI> algorithm should be attempted. But is it possible to fall back to LMI> plain-text? I don't really know how that works. But if that's LMI> possible, the fall-back should obviously stop before it gets that far. LMI> After a priority has been established, I then think that the priority LMI> for this specific server/port pair should be saved via Customize, so LMI> that the next connection can be done faster automatically, without the LMI> need for all this negotiation. Could you ask on the GnuTLS dev list? Both of these are possible AFAICT but perhaps they have suggestions for the implementation specifics. Ted