2022年2月17日 · You just made it up. The TLS specification, including mutual authentication, is to be found in RFC 2246 as amended. The TLS APIs should make the peer certificate chain available to the application, so it can do any additional checking it likes. 'MTLS', insofar as it exists at all, refers to an Internet Draft for multiplexed TLS.

2017年11月11日 · Interesting. RFC and OWASP differ in their recommendations. I prefer OWASP's version - don't respond to the request and just drop the packet. With the RFC approach, a man-in-the-middle could intercept the response (since it isn't https yet) and redirect to a spoofed website. –

2010年12月3日 · So, I've studied the TLS protocol using both my textbook as well as the latest RFC, so I have a pretty good understanding of how TLS/SSL works, and also how the TLS record format is laid out, byte-by-byte. So, to start out I decided to write a server program that listens on port 443 and accepts incoming secure HTTP connections.

2011年1月31日 · Indeed there is such a mandate in RFC 2246 -- TLS 1.0 if the TCP connection is closed without sending a close_notify alert: see section 7.2.1 of the RFC 2246. This mandate was widely ignored in implementations that otherwise followed RFC 2246. Acknowledging this, TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 have eliminated the requirement.

2014年3月6日 · The details lie in RFC 5077 which supersedes RFC 4507. The ticket mechanism is a TLS extension. The client can advertise its support by sending an empty “Session Ticket” extension in the “Client Hello” message.

2021年7月26日 · The code runs fine and I get the message as "Connected to database". However I get a message as "(node:10212) [DEP0123] DeprecationWarning: Setting the TLS ServerName to an IP address is not permitted by RFC 6066. This will be ignored in a future version." What can I do to get rid of it?

How would you extract the Server Name Indication (SNI) from a TLS Client Hello message. I'm currently struggling to understand this very cryptic RFC 3546 on TLS Extensions, in which the SNI is defined. Things I've understood so far: The host is utf8 encoded and readable when you utf8 encode the buffer.

2010年9月11日 · Since then, the IETF has continued iterating on the protocol to address security flaws, as well as to extend its capabilities: TLS 1.1 (RFC 2246) was published in April 2006, TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246) in August 2008, and work is now underway to define TLS 1.3.

2013年3月11日 · PPS: Oh, and if this was worth reading, don't miss RFC 7457, "Summarizing Known Attacks on Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS)". I'm surprised DTLS 1.3 (the final draft anyway) doesn't refer to it (such as from its Security Considerations section) and neither does the TLS 1.3 spec!

2015年9月10日 · The difference is between EVP_CIPHER which represents (only) a symmetric cipher instance (algorithm, mode, key, IV/params) versus SSL_CIPHER which describes an SSL/TLS ciphersuite with key-exchange and authentication method, symmetric cipher with keysize and mode, and mac hash if applicable, plus other internal attributes. But …