From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.149.33 with SMTP id tx1mr4037200pab.28.1458153084352; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:31:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.80.74 with SMTP id p10mr86861obx.8.1458153084290; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!au2pb.net!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!news.glorb.com!av4no896891igc.0!news-out.google.com!k1ni440igd.0!nntp.google.com!av4no896887igc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:31:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=169.0.179.123; posting-account=p-xPhAkAAADjHQWEO7sFME2XBdF1P_2H NNTP-Posting-Host: 169.0.179.123 References: <5011d79c-aaad-464e-a68e-c31a2738a820@googlegroups.com> <87a8lzcv5a.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> <87wpp3ar1l.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <8173fd3d-de91-4223-a069-8507f840d262@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada for the TLS/SSL problem? From: Peter Brooks Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:31:24 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:29809 Date: 2016-03-16T11:31:24-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 19:05:09 UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On 2016-03-16 13:09, Peter Brooks wrote: > > > My feeling is that we'd need a general, configurable, security > > layer. This can be proved to work by implementing TLS. > > Well from my POV the idea of a layer as known in SSL/TLS is a > non-starter. It is broken per design because it cannot provide > reasonable QoS, short latency required for automation and control > applications. > > The basic requirement is that encryption and signing may not coalesce > transport packets. Ideally it should work on the packet level with > packets of any length. I understand that this would impose difficult > problems but otherwise it would be unusable outside lousy web applications. > SSL, and TLS are defined at level 6 of the OSI model. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OSI_model&action=submit > > It is OK to implement TLS as-is, nobody would object that. But something > better must be really better. > Undoubtably!