Code review request, 7188658 Add possibility to disable client initiated renegotiation

[Brad Wetmore]

Rearranging and tweaking a bit. What do you think of:

---
Reject client initiated renegotiation?

If server side should reject client-initiated renegotiation, send an 
alert_handshake_failure fatal alert, not a no_renegotiation warning 
alert (no_renegotiation must be a warning: RFC 2246).  no_renegotiation 
might seem more natural at first, but warnings are not appropriate 
because the sending party does not know how the receiving party will 
behave.  This state must be treated as a fatal server condition.

This will not have any impact on server initiated renegotiation.
---

Brad




On 6/27/2013 4:51 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
> On 6/28/2013 6:44 AM, Brad Wetmore wrote:
>> continued, I forgot this next part.
>>
>>>> ServerHandshaker.java
>>>> =====================
>>>> 283:  My initial thought was a no_renegotiation(100) warning, but that
>>>> allows the client to decide what to do, rather than the server
>>>> terminating.
>>>>
>>> No, we cannot.  First of all, warning message is not very useful because
>>> in general the sending party cannot know how the receiving party behave.
>>>    Secondly, it is the expected behavior to *reject" client initiated
>>> renegotiation. It is the server who should make the decision, but not
>>> the client.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>>> This TLS logic decision is not straightforward, so this needs
>>>> commenting.
>>
>> And the above is what I wanted to see in the comments.  That is, why we
>> don't send a no_renegotiation warning alert.  It's a subtle but
>> important enough point that should be documented.  I think we should
>> open a separate bug to handle this.  Just a couple of lines are needed.
>>
> What do you think these words:
>
> "Please don't send a no_renegotiation warning alert. Warning message is
> not very useful because in general the sending party cannot know how the
> receiving party behave.  The server side need to reject client initiated
> renegotiation proactively."
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
>
>
>
>