safe renegotiation bug?

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmav at
Fri May 28 09:31:32 CEST 2010

Simon Josefsson wrote:

>>>> Should be ok now. I get aborts in the srn5 but they seem intended?
>>> I fixed that now -- however it seems there is another problem, now the
>>> rehandshake succeeds against a server that doesn't support safe
>>> renegotiation.  The second handshake in srn5 should fail, shouldn't it?
>> By default server is on unsafe renegotiation mode and doesn't require
>> any of the extensions, either on the first or subsequent negotiations.
>> Disallowing rengotiations after this point for the client shouldn't
>> offer any advantage since you are already connected securely to a peer.
> But this self tests is with a server that has safe renegotiation
> disabled, see tests/safe-renegotiation/srn5.c.
> The client by default permits connections, but I don't think clients
> should (by default) allow renegotiation against such servers.


More information about the Gnutls-devel mailing list