Application Security

9/7/2018
05:05 PM
50%
50%

TLS 1.3 Won't Break Everything

The newest version of TLS won't break everything in your security infrastructure, but you do need to be prepared for the changes it brings.

Transport Layer Security (TLS) is a foundation piece of modern Internet security. As the replacement of the earlier (and now deprecated) SSL, TLS encrypts the majority of sessions taking place via a web interface. And now, there's a new version with new considerations for organizations giving their users and customers a more secure web experience.

In August, TLS 1.3 was defined in IETF RFC 8446. With that formal definition, the new version became available for implementation and a possible part of the requirements for a number of different regulations.

TLS 1.3 was not suddenly sprung on an unsuspecting world. The new standard went through 28 drafts to reach a production state and some products and services began incorporating TLS 1.3 compatibility over a year before the final version. Even so, articles have been written, and speeches given, about all the ways that TLS 1.3 will break current security protocols. So what is it about TLS 1.3 that leads to so much anxiety?

How TLS 1.3 is different

One of the important benefits touted for TLS 1.3 is improved performance, much of which comes because of a simplified "handshake" process between client and server when establishing a session. There are several technical reasons this is possible, but one of them is that a single negotiation — that of which encryption algorithm to use — is eliminated.

The server provides a key for an approved algorithm, the client accepts the key, and the session is begun. One strength of this scheme is that a number of older, weaker, encryption algorithms are no longer allowed, so several attack mechanisms become impossible.

When the server supplies an encryption key, it is valid for the particular session, and only that session. This leads to something called Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS), which means that it's impossible for a threat actor to capture a bunch of traffic, later discover the server's encryption key, and then decrypt the captured traffic after the fact. This is, by itself, a major step forward in data security.

Why TLS 1.3 is important

While many organizations, especially those in finance and banking, have been proponents of TLS 1.3, there has not been universal joy at its adoption. The reason is that, despite the concerns of some security professionals, there's no "back door" into the unencrypted traffic.

Why would security professionals, of all people, want a back door into encryption? The answer is visibility. Many enterprise security tools, especially those that do anything described as "deep packet inspection," are essentially engaging in an authorized man-in-the-middle attack, intercepting encrypted traffic, decrypting and analyzing the contents, then re-encrypting the stream before sending it to its destination.

This sort of man-in-the-middle approach is relatively simple with an encryption key based on a server identity (rather than a session), but becomes vastly more complex with the scheme used by TLS 1.3. To put it bluntly, TLS 1.3 breaks many of the products used by organizations deploying TLS 1.2 for their encryption. Those organizations have concerns for both malware trapping and regulatory compliance since they may not have a way of inspecting the contents of communications going in and out of the network.

Network and application infrastructure companies have begun rolling out products that address the inspection issues in TLS 1.3. This is critical because both server software and browsers are beginning to be released that support or require the use of TLS 1.3. The real question will be how quickly organizations adopt the new protocol, a question that is more relevant given that, by some measures, more than half of all commercial web sites still have pages using TLS 1.0 for security.

Related content:

 

 

Black Hat Europe returns to London Dec 3-6 2018  with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
WebAuthn, FIDO2 Infuse Browsers, Platforms with Strong Authentication
John Fontana, Standards & Identity Analyst, Yubico,  9/19/2018
Turn the NIST Cybersecurity Framework into Reality: 5 Steps
Mukul Kumar & Anupam Sahai, CISO & VP of Cyber Practice and VP Product Management, Cavirin Systems,  9/20/2018
NSS Labs Files Antitrust Suit Against Symantec, CrowdStrike, ESET, AMTSO
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/19/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: White Privelege Day
Current Issue
Flash Poll
The Risk Management Struggle
The Risk Management Struggle
The majority of organizations are struggling to implement a risk-based approach to security even though risk reduction has become the primary metric for measuring the effectiveness of enterprise security strategies. Read the report and get more details today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-17282
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-20
An issue was discovered in Exiv2 v0.26. The function Exiv2::DataValue::copy in value.cpp has a NULL pointer dereference.
CVE-2018-14592
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-20
The CWJoomla CW Article Attachments PRO extension before 2.0.7 and CW Article Attachments FREE extension before 1.0.6 for Joomla! allow SQL Injection within download.php.
CVE-2018-15832
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-20
upc.exe in Ubisoft Uplay Desktop Client versions 63.0.5699.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must visit a malicious page or open a malicious file. The specific flaw exists within the processing of URI ha...
CVE-2018-16282
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-20
A command injection vulnerability in the web server functionality of Moxa EDR-810 V4.2 build 18041013 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands with root privilege via the caname parameter to the /xml/net_WebCADELETEGetValue URI.
CVE-2018-16752
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-20
LINK-NET LW-N605R devices with firmware 12.20.2.1486 allow Remote Code Execution via shell metacharacters in the HOST field of the ping feature at adm/systools.asp. Authentication is needed but the default password of admin for the admin account may be used in some cases.