Deprecating Obsolete Key Exchange Methods in TLS 1.2

Deprecating Obsolete Key Exchange Methods in TLS 1.2 Roblox

cbartle@roblox.com

nimrod.aviram@gmail.com

Internet-Draft This document deprecates the use of RSA key exchange and Diffie Hellman over a finite field in TLS 1.2, and discourages the use of static elliptic curve Diffie Hellman cipher suites. Note that these prescriptions apply only to TLS 1.2 since TLS 1.0 and 1.1 are deprecated by and TLS 1.3 either does not use the affected algorithm or does not share the relevant configuration options.

Introduction TLS 1.2 supports a variety of key exchange algorithms, including RSA, Diffie Hellman over a finite field, and elliptic curve Diffie Hellman (ECDH). Diffie Hellman key exchange, over any group, comes in ephemeral and non-ephemeral varieties. Non-ephemeral DH algorithms use static DH public keys included in the authenticating peer's certificate; see for discussion. In contrast, ephemeral DH algorithms use ephemeral DH public keys sent in the handshake and authenticated by the peer's certificate. Ephemeral and non-ephemeral finite field DH algorithms are called DHE and DH (or FFDHE and FFDH), respectively, and ephemeral and non-ephemeral elliptic curve DH algorithms are called ECDHE and ECDH, respectively . In general, non-ephemeral cipher suites are not recommended due to their lack of forward secrecy. Moreover, as demonstrated by the attack on finite-field DH, public key reuse, either via non-ephemeral cipher suites or reused keys with ephemeral cipher suites, can lead to timing side channels that may leak connection secrets. For elliptic curve DH, invalid curve attacks similarly exploit secret reuse in order to break security , further demonstrating the risk of reusing public keys. While both side channels can be avoided in implementations, experience shows that in practice, implementations may fail to thwart such attacks due to the complexity and number of the required mitigations. Additionally, RSA key exchange suffers from security problems that are independent of implementation choices as well as problems that stem purely from the difficulty of implementing security countermeasures correctly. At a rough glance, the problems affecting FFDHE in TLS 1.2 are as follows:

FFDHE suffers from interoperability problems because there is no mechanism for negotiating the group, and some implementations only support small group sizes (see , Section 1).
FFDHE groups may have small subgroups, which enables several attacks . When presented with a custom, non-standardized FFDHE group, a handshaking client cannot practically verify that the group chosen by the server does not suffer from this problem. There is also no mechanism for such handshakes to fall back to other key exchange parameters that are acceptable to the client. Custom FFDHE groups are widespread (as a result of advice based on ). Therefore, clients cannot simply reject handshakes that present custom, and thus potentially dangerous, groups.
In practice, some operators use 1024-bit FFDHE groups since this is the maximum size that ensures wide support (see , Section 1). This size leaves only a small security margin vs. the current discrete log record, which stands at 795 bits .
Expanding on the previous point, just a handful of very large computations allow an attacker to cheaply decrypt a relatively large fraction of FFDHE traffic (namely, traffic encrypted using particular standardized groups) .
When secrets are not fully ephemeral, FFDHE suffers from the side channel attack. (Note that FFDH is inherently vulnerable to the Raccoon attack unless constant-time mitigations are employed.)

The problems affecting RSA key exchange in TLS 1.2 are as follows:

RSA key exchange offers no forward secrecy, by construction.
RSA key exchange may be vulnerable to Bleichenbacher's attack . Experience shows that variants of this attack arise every few years because implementing the relevant countermeasure correctly is difficult (see , , ).
In addition to the above point, there is no convenient mechanism in TLS 1.2 for the domain separation of keys. Therefore, a single endpoint that is vulnerable to Bleichenbacher's attack would affect all endpoints sharing the same RSA key (see , ).

Given these problems, this document updates , , , , , , , , , , and to remediate the above problems.

Requirements The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Non-Ephemeral Diffie Hellman Clients MUST NOT offer and servers MUST NOT select non-ephemeral FFDH cipher suites in TLS 1.2 connections. (Note that TLS 1.0 and 1.1 are deprecated by and TLS 1.3 does not support FFDH .) This includes all cipher suites listed in the table in . Clients SHOULD NOT offer and servers SHOULD NOT select non-ephemeral ECDH cipher suites in TLS 1.2 connections. (Note that TLS 1.0 and 1.1 are deprecated by and TLS 1.3 does not support ECDH .) This includes all cipher suites listed in the table in .

Ephemeral Finite Field Diffie Hellman Clients MUST NOT offer and servers MUST NOT select FFDHE cipher suites in TLS 1.2 connections. This includes all cipher suites listed in the table in . (Note that TLS 1.0 and 1.1 are deprecated by .) FFDHE cipher suites in TLS 1.3 do not suffer from the problems presented in ; see . Therefore, clients and servers MAY offer FFDHE cipher suites in TLS 1.3 connections.

RSA Clients MUST NOT offer and servers MUST NOT select RSA cipher suites in TLS 1.2 connections. (Note that TLS 1.0 and 1.1 are deprecated by , and TLS 1.3 does not support static RSA .) This includes all cipher suites listed in the table in . Note that these cipher suites are already marked as not recommended in the "TLS Cipher Suites" registry.

IANA Considerations This document requests IANA to mark the cipher suites listed in as not recommended in the "TLS Cipher Suites" registry. Note that all cipher suites listed in and in are already marked as not recommended in the registry.

Security Considerations Non-ephemeral finite field DH cipher suites (TLS_DH_*), as well as ephemeral key reuse for finite field DH cipher suites, are prohibited due to the attack. Both are already considered bad practice since they do not provide forward secrecy. However, Raccoon revealed that timing side channels in processing TLS premaster secrets may be exploited to reveal the encrypted premaster secret. As for non-ephemeral elliptic curve DH cipher suites, forgoing forward secrecy not only allows retroactive decryption in the event of key compromise but may also enable a broad category of attacks where the attacker exploits key reuse to repeatedly query a cryptographic secret. This category includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following examples:

Invalid curve attacks, where the attacker exploits key reuse to repeatedly query and eventually learn the key itself. These attacks have been shown to be practical against real-world TLS implementations .
Side channel attacks, where the attacker exploits key reuse and an additional side channel to learn a cryptographic secret. As one example of such attacks, refer to .
Fault attacks, where the attacker exploits key reuse and incorrect calculations to learn a cryptographic secret. As one example of such attacks, see .

Such attacks are often implementation-dependent, including the above examples. However, these examples demonstrate that building a system that reuses keys and avoids this category of attacks is difficult in practice. In contrast, avoiding key reuse not only prevents decryption in the event of key compromise, but also precludes this category of attacks altogether. Therefore, this document discourages the reuse of elliptic curve DH public keys. As for ephemeral finite field Diffie-Hellman in TLS 1.2, as explained above, clients have no practical way to support these cipher suites while ensuring they only negotiate security parameters that are acceptable to them. In TLS 1.2, the server chooses the Diffie-Hellman group, and custom groups are prevalent. Therefore, once the client includes these cipher suites in its handshake and the server presents a custom group, the client cannot complete the handshake while ensuring security. Verifying the group structure is prohibitively expensive for the client. Using a safelist of known-good groups is also impractical, since server operators were encouraged to generate their own custom group. Further, there is no mechanism for the handshake to fall back to other parameters, that are acceptable to both the client and server.

Acknowledgments This document was inspired by discussions on the TLS WG mailing list and a suggestion by Filippo Valsorda following the release of the attack. Thanks to Christopher A. Wood for writing up the initial draft of this document. Thanks also to and for comments and suggestions.

References Normative References Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 This document formally deprecates Transport Layer Security (TLS) versions 1.0 (RFC 2246) and 1.1 (RFC 4346). Accordingly, those documents have been moved to Historic status. These versions lack support for current and recommended cryptographic algorithms and mechanisms, and various government and industry profiles of applications using TLS now mandate avoiding these old TLS versions. TLS version 1.2 became the recommended version for IETF protocols in 2008 (subsequently being obsoleted by TLS version 1.3 in 2018), providing sufficient time to transition away from older versions. Removing support for older versions from implementations reduces the attack surface, reduces opportunity for misconfiguration, and streamlines library and product maintenance. This document also deprecates Datagram TLS (DTLS) version 1.0 (RFC 4347) but not DTLS version 1.2, and there is no DTLS version 1.1. This document updates many RFCs that normatively refer to TLS version 1.0 or TLS version 1.1, as described herein. This document also updates the best practices for TLS usage in RFC 7525; hence, it is part of BCP 195. Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Traditional finite-field-based Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchange during the Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshake suffers from a number of security, interoperability, and efficiency shortcomings. These shortcomings arise from lack of clarity about which DH group parameters TLS servers should offer and clients should accept. This document offers a solution to these shortcomings for compatible peers by using a section of the TLS "Supported Groups Registry" (renamed from "EC Named Curve Registry" by this document) to establish common finite field DH parameters with known structure and a mechanism for peers to negotiate support for these groups. This document updates TLS versions 1.0 (RFC 2246), 1.1 (RFC 4346), and 1.2 (RFC 5246), as well as the TLS Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) extensions (RFC 4492). The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1 This document specifies Version 1.1 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 This document specifies Version 1.2 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Addition of SEED Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS) This document proposes the addition of new cipher suites to the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support the SEED encryption algorithm as a bulk cipher algorithm. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2 This document specifies version 1.2 of the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. The DTLS protocol provides communications privacy for datagram protocols. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. The DTLS protocol is based on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol and provides equivalent security guarantees. Datagram semantics of the underlying transport are preserved by the DTLS protocol. This document updates DTLS 1.0 to work with TLS version 1.2. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Camellia Cipher Suites for TLS This document specifies a set of cipher suites for the Transport Security Layer (TLS) protocol to support the Camellia encryption algorithm as a block cipher. It amends the cipher suites originally specified in RFC 4132 by introducing counterparts using the newer cryptographic hash algorithms from the SHA-2 family. This document obsoletes RFC 4132. [STANDARDS-TRACK] AES Galois Counter Mode (GCM) Cipher Suites for TLS This memo describes the use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) as a Transport Layer Security (TLS) authenticated encryption operation. GCM provides both confidentiality and data origin authentication, can be efficiently implemented in hardware for speeds of 10 gigabits per second and above, and is also well-suited to software implementations. This memo defines TLS cipher suites that use AES-GCM with RSA, DSA, and Diffie-Hellman-based key exchange mechanisms. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Addition of the ARIA Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS) This document specifies a set of cipher suites for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support the ARIA encryption algorithm as a block cipher. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. Addition of the Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS) This document specifies forty-two cipher suites for the Transport Security Layer (TLS) protocol to support the Camellia encryption algorithm as a block cipher. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier This document describes key exchange algorithms based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. In particular, it specifies the use of Ephemeral Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDHE) key agreement in a TLS handshake and the use of the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) and Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) as authentication mechanisms. This document obsoletes RFC 4492. TLS Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites with SHA-256/384 and AES Galois Counter Mode (GCM) RFC 4492 describes elliptic curve cipher suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS). However, all those cipher suites use HMAC-SHA-1 as their Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. This document describes sixteen new cipher suites for TLS that specify stronger MAC algorithms. Eight use Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) with SHA-256 or SHA-384, and eight use AES in Galois Counter Mode (GCM). This memo provides information for the Internet community. DES and IDEA Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Layer Security (TLS) versions 1.0 (RFC 2246) and 1.1 (RFC 4346) include cipher suites based on DES (Data Encryption Standard) and IDEA (International Data Encryption Algorithm) algorithms. DES (when used in single-DES mode) and IDEA are no longer recommended for general use in TLS, and have been removed from TLS version 1.2 (RFC 5246). This document specifies these cipher suites for completeness and discusses reasons why their use is no longer recommended. This memo provides information for the Internet community. Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3 This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery. This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations. Pre-Shared Key (PSK) Ciphersuites with NULL Encryption for Transport Layer Security (TLS) This document specifies authentication-only ciphersuites (with no encryption) for the Pre-Shared Key (PSK) based Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. These ciphersuites are useful when authentication and integrity protection is desired, but confidentiality is not needed or not permitted. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) This document specifies three sets of new ciphersuites for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support authentication based on pre-shared keys (PSKs). These pre-shared keys are symmetric keys, shared in advance among the communicating parties. The first set of ciphersuites uses only symmetric key operations for authentication. The second set uses a Diffie-Hellman exchange authenticated with a pre-shared key, and the third set combines public key authentication of the server with pre-shared key authentication of the client. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Pre-Shared Key Cipher Suites for TLS with SHA-256/384 and AES Galois Counter Mode RFC 4279 and RFC 4785 describe pre-shared key cipher suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS). However, all those cipher suites use SHA-1 in their Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. This document describes a set of pre-shared key cipher suites for TLS that uses stronger digest algorithms (i.e., SHA-256 or SHA-384) and another set that uses the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in Galois Counter Mode (GCM). [STANDARDS-TRACK] AES-CCM Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) This memo describes the use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in the Counter with Cipher Block Chaining - Message Authentication Code (CBC-MAC) Mode (CCM) of operation within Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) to provide confidentiality and data origin authentication. The AES-CCM algorithm is amenable to compact implementations, making it suitable for constrained environments. [STANDARDS-TRACK] ChaCha20-Poly1305 Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) This document describes the use of the ChaCha stream cipher and Poly1305 authenticator in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocols. This document updates RFCs 5246 and 6347. Informative References Raccoon Attack: Finding and Exploiting Most-Significant-Bit-Oracles in TLS-DH(E) Practical invalid curve attacks on TLS-ECDH Weak Diffie-Hellman and the Logjam Attack Measuring small subgroup attacks against Diffie-Hellman Chosen Ciphertext Attacks against Protocols Based on RSA Encryption Standard PKCS #1 Return Of Bleichenbacher's Oracle Threat (ROBOT) Revisiting SSL/TLS Implementations: New Bleichenbacher Side Channels and Attacks DROWN: Breaking TLS using SSLv2 On the Security of TLS 1.3 and QUIC Against Weaknesses in PKCS#1 v1.5 Encryption Moving single-DES and IDEA TLS ciphersuites to Historic Comparing the difficulty of factorization and discrete logarithm: a 240-digit experiment Server Side TLS May the fourth be with you: A microarchitectural side channel attack on several real-world applications of curve25519 n.d. The PARIS256 Attack n.d. Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) This document describes new key exchange algorithms based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. In particular, it specifies the use of Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) key agreement in a TLS handshake and the use of Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) as a new authentication mechanism. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

DH Cipher Suites Deprecated by This Document

Ciphersuite	Reference
TLS_DH_DSS_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_anon_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_MD5
TLS_DH_anon_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DH_anon_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384

ECDH Cipher Suites Whose Use Is Discouraged by This Document

Ciphersuite	Reference
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_NULL_SHA
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_NULL_SHA
TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_SHA
TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_ECDH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384

DHE Cipher Suites deprecated by This Document

Ciphersuite	Reference
TLS_DHE_DSS_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_NULL_SHA
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_RC4_128_SHA
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_NULL_SHA256
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_NULL_SHA384
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CCM
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256
TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256
TLS_PSK_DHE_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8
TLS_PSK_DHE_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8

RSA Cipher Suites Deprecated by This Document

Ciphersuite	Reference
TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_MD5
TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA
TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5
TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5
TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA
TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_40_MD5
TLS_RSA_WITH_IDEA_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_NULL_SHA
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_RC4_128_SHA
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_WITH_SEED_CBC_SHA
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_NULL_SHA256
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_NULL_SHA384
TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_RSA_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_ARIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8
TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256