News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on "OpenSSL has exploit mitigation countermeasures to make sure it's exploitable". Parent comment

Re:"OpenSSL has exploit mitigation countermeasures to make s... by caf on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @08:01AM (#7558766)
It's easy to see why, without the benefit of hindsight, one might think that the minimal approach was to have the same extensions apply to both DTLS and TLS.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:"OpenSSL has exploit mitigation countermeasures to make s... by EvanAnderson on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @08:29AM (#7558858)
I don't know where to go look (mailing list archives? meeting minutes?) to find any discussion about this extension (I'm woefully ignorant of Internet standards processes), but it would certainly be nice to review that discussion.

Given the rather dramatic differences that need to occur in a protocol designed to work over unreliable versus reliable transport, though, it seems like a bad idea to try to keep "parity" between DTLS and TLS. I can see how somebody might see it as "elegant" to do so, but I'd argue they're different animals solving different problems.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:"OpenSSL has exploit mitigation countermeasures to make s... by ralfd on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @11:00AM (#7559688)
Maybe the payload is used for a sequential id number?
[ Parent | on HN ]