Cited by 173Advanced Authentication Protocols SecurityCryptographic Implementations and SecurityWeb Application Security Vulnerabilities

Triple Handshakes and Cookie Cutters: Breaking and Fixing Authentication over TLS

Open access
Bhargavan, Karthikeyan, Lavaud, Antoine Delignat, Fournet, Cedric, Pironti, Alfredo, Strub, Pierre Yves·2014·2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy

Abstract

TLS was designed as a transparent channel abstraction to allow developers with no cryptographic expertise to protect their application against attackers that may control some clients, some servers, and may have the capability to tamper with network connections. However, the security guarantees of TLS fall short of those of a secure channel, leading to a variety of attacks. We show how some widespread false beliefs about these guarantees can be exploited to attack popular applications and defeat several standard authentication methods that rely too naively on TLS. We present new client impersonation attacks against TLS renegotiations, wireless networks, challenge-response protocols, and channel-bound cookies. Our attacks exploit combinations of RSA and Diffie-Hellman key exchange, session resumption, and renegotiation to bypass many recent countermeasures. We also demonstrate new ways to exploit known weaknesses of HTTP over TLS. We investigate the root causes for these attacks and propose new countermeasures. At the protocol level, we design and implement two new TLS extensions that strengthen the authentication guarantees of the handshake. At the application level, we develop an exemplary HTTPS client library that implements several mitigations, on top of a previously verified TLS implementation, and verify that their composition provides strong, simple application security.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/sp.2014.14

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Agent communication protocols may also be susceptible to classical communication-layer attacks such as downgrade and replay attacks.

    “An important, but not commonly emphasized, aspect of secure protocols is that that agent communication protocols may also be susceptible to classical communication-layer attacks (e.g., downgrade and replay attacks (Needham & Schroeder, 1978;Lowe, 1995;Bhargavan et al., 2014;Google, 2014)).”

    From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Bhargavan et al., 2014

    The “Attack and Mitigation” passage describes replaying a Channel ID signature to impersonate a client, supporting the replay example. The paper also documents attacks on application protocols built over TLS, but the passages do not establish the downgrade-attack example or a claim about agent communication protocols generally (pages unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. N. AlFardan, D. Bernstein, K. Paterson, B. Poettering, and J. Schuldt. On the Security of RC4 in TLS. In USENIX Security, 2013.
  2. N. J. AlFardan and K. G. Paterson. Lucky thirteen: breaking the TLS and DTLS record protocols. In IEEE S&P, 2013.
  3. A. Barth, C. Jackson, and J. C. Mitchell. Robust defenses for cross-site request forgery. In ACM CCS, 2008.
  4. K. Bhargavan, C. Fournet, R. Corin, and E. Zȃlinescu. Verified Crypto- graphic Implementations for TLS. ACM TISSEC, 15(1):1-32, 2012.
  5. K. Bhargavan, C. Fournet, M. Kohlweiss, A. Pironti, and P. Strub. Implementing TLS with verified cryptographic security. In IEEE S&P, 2013.
  6. A. Cassola, W. Robertson, E. Kirda, and G. Noubir. A practical, targeted, and stealthy attack against WPA enterprise authentication. In NDSS, 2013.
  7. S. Chaki and A. Datta. ASPIER: An automated framework for verifying security protocol implementations. In IEEE CSF, 2009.
  8. M. Dietz, A. Czeskis, D. Balfanz, and D. S. Wallach. Origin-bound certificates: a fresh approach to strong client authentication for the web. In USENIX Security, 2012.
  9. C. Fournet, M. Kohlweiss, and P.-Y. Strub. Modular code-based cryptographic verification. In ACM CCS, 2011.
  10. M. Georgiev, S. Iyengar, S. Jana, R. Anubhai, D. Boneh, and V. Shmatikov. The most dangerous code in the world: validating SSL certificates in non-browser software. In ACM CCS, 2012.
  11. F. Giesen, F. Kohlar, and D. Stebila. On the security of TLS renegotia- tion. In ACM CCS, 2013.
  12. B. S. Kaliski Jr. An unknown key-share attack on the MQV key agreement protocol. ACM TISSEC, 4(3):275-288, 2001.
  13. G. Lowe. An attack on the needham-schroeder public-key authentication protocol. Information Processing Letters, 56(3):131-133, 1995.
  14. N. Mavrogiannopoulos, F. Vercauteren, V. Velichkov, and B. Preneel. A cross-protocol attack on the TLS protocol. In ACM CCS, 2012.
  15. R. Oppliger, R. Hauser, and D. Basin. SSL/TLS session-aware user authentication -Or how to effectively thwart the man-in-the-middle. Computer Communications, 29(12):2238-2246, 2006.
  16. J.-F. Raymond and A. Stiglic. Security issues in the Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 22:1-17, 2000.
  17. B. Smyth and A. Pironti. Truncating TLS Connections to Violate Beliefs in Web Applications. In USENIX WOOT, 2013.
  18. E. Stark, L.-S. Huang, D. Israni, C. Jackson, and D. Boneh. The case for prefetching and prevalidating TLS server certificates. In NDSS, 2012.
  19. P. van Oorschot. Extending cryptographic logics of belief to key agreement protocols. In ACM CCS, 1993.
  20. D. Wagner and B. Schneier. Analysis of the SSL 3.0 protocol. In USENIX Electronic Commerce, 1996.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhargavan, K., Lavaud, A. D., Fournet, C., Pironti, A., & Strub, P. Y.
Affiliations
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • Madrid Institute for Advanced Studies (ES)
Venue
2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2014-05
Pages
98-113
ISSN
1081-6011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975344666
Cited by
173
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 11
FWCI
22.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Authentication Protocols Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptographic Implementations and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Application Security Vulnerabilities
Keywords
TLS, session resumption, Diffie-Hellman key exchange, challenge-response protocol, TLS extensions, countermeasures, wireless networks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review