You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
s2n-tls should create a few new Security Policies:
CNSA_1.0: This policy should be an alias to the existing rfc9151 TLS Security policy
CNSA_1.0-2.0: This policy should be a combination of CNSA 1.0 and 2.0 guidance, with 2.0 guidance being preferred over 1.0. This will allow clients time to migrate from 1.0 to 2.0.
CNSA_2.0: This policy should follow the CNSA 2.0 guidance exactly.
The specific naming of these policies is still to be decided. Alternatively these policies might be named cnsa-1, cnsa-2, cnsa-2-strict.
Requirements / Acceptance Criteria:
What must a solution address in order to solve the problem? How do we know the solution is complete?
Will the Usage Guide or other documentation need to be updated?
Testing: How will this change be tested? Call out new integration tests, functional tests, or particularly interesting/important unit tests.
Will this change trigger SAW changes? Changes to the state machine, the s2n_handshake_io code that controls state transitions, the DRBG, or the corking/uncorking logic could trigger SAW failures.
Should this change be fuzz tested? Will it handle untrusted input? Create a separate issue to track the fuzzing work.
Out of scope:
Is there anything the solution will intentionally NOT address?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Problem:
s2n currently has a TLS Security Policy for "rfc9151" that follows the CNSA 1.0 TLS guidance.
There is a new draft RFC for CNSA 2.0 guidance here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-becker-cnsa2-tls-profile/
Solution:
s2n-tls should create a few new Security Policies:
CNSA_1.0
: This policy should be an alias to the existingrfc9151
TLS Security policyCNSA_1.0-2.0
: This policy should be a combination of CNSA 1.0 and 2.0 guidance, with 2.0 guidance being preferred over 1.0. This will allow clients time to migrate from 1.0 to 2.0.CNSA_2.0
: This policy should follow the CNSA 2.0 guidance exactly.The specific naming of these policies is still to be decided. Alternatively these policies might be named
cnsa-1
,cnsa-2
,cnsa-2-strict
.Requirements / Acceptance Criteria:
What must a solution address in order to solve the problem? How do we know the solution is complete?
Out of scope:
Is there anything the solution will intentionally NOT address?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: