# Is TLS finished message encryption at record protocol redundant?

TLS finished message is encrypted under the record protocol's current cipher state. Being able to authenticate FINISHED message at record protocol proves that the genuineness of peer endpoint. Verifying handshake_hash proves that the handshake has not been tampered by MITM.

The verify_data in FINISHED is calculated using PRF and master secret. So the verification of verify_data should be a sufficient proof of both the authentication of peer and handshake message sanity.

Why additionally the record protocol does cipher operation on FINISHED message? I think it could have been equivalent if FINISHED message were sent before change_cipher_spec.

If you do Finished after change_cipher_spec, and since Finished has to be the first message after setting the cipher spec, you get the added benefit of requiring a successful decryption of a message before any (potentially sensitive) user data is transmitted. This step serves as an extra "checksum".

From Section 7.4.9 of RFC 5246: (emphasis mine)

The Finished message is the first one protected with the just negotiated algorithms, keys, and secrets. Recipients of Finished messages MUST verify that the contents are correct. Once a side has sent its Finished message and received and validated the Finished message from its peer, it may begin to send and receive application data over the connection.

## Edit:

You wonder if encrypting Finished is unnecessary given that verify_data provides sufficient authentication against tampering. I claim that an sending an unencrypted Finished message would be quite disastrous for TLS.

The end of a normal TLS handshake looks as follows:

$$\text{client} \rightarrow \text{server}:$$ change_cipher_spec

$$\text{client} \rightarrow \text{server}:$$ Finished $$a_k$$

$$\text{server} \rightarrow \text{client}:$$ change_cipher_spec

$$\text{server} \rightarrow \text{client}:$$ Finished $$a_k$$

$$\text{client} \rightarrow \text{server}:$$ encrypted application data transmits... $$m_k$$

Here, $$a_k$$ and $$m_k$$ are the authenticaton code for Finished and session data keyed by $$k$$. It's important to reiterate that before a change_cipher_spec message is received, the current cipher suite offers no encryption or authentication; it's still pending the negotiated parameters upon receipt of change_cipher_spec.

Now imagine Andy Adversary on the network observing this handshake. In the special case where the negotiated cipher suite only handles authentication and not encryption, Andy removes the change_cipher_spec messages, so that the client and server never update their cipher suites and thus never enable authentication or encryption with the negotiated parameters. Welcome to catastrophe. Now Andy sits in the middle, stripping off authentication fields from Finished messages and later sensitive session data. So now you have no authentication either.

Here's the modified, defeated handshake:

$$\text{client} \rightarrow \text{adversary}:$$ change_cipher_spec

$$\text{client} \rightarrow \text{adversary}:$$ Finished $$a_k$$

$$\text{adversary} \rightarrow \text{client}:$$ Finished $$a$$

$$\text{server} \rightarrow \text{adversary}:$$ change_cipher_spec

$$\text{server} \rightarrow \text{adversary}:$$ Finished $$a_k$$

$$\text{adversary} \rightarrow \text{client}:$$ Finished $$a$$

$$\text{client} \rightarrow \text{adversary}:$$ unencrypted application data transmits... $$m_k$$

$$\text{adversary} \rightarrow \text{server}:$$ unencrypted application data transmits... $$m$$

It's easy for Andy Adversary to strip off the MAC field since there's no encryption. So now he has not only access to unencrypted, unauthenticated messages, but he can also forge whatever messages he likes.

If encryption were part of the cipher suite as is normal, the attack is much harder, but the point is that by passing in Finished after change_cipher_spec, you eliminate even the possibility of the attack.

What I have described here comes directly from Wagner and Schneier, who knew of this attack by 1997. As a matter of fact, they note that Netscape's SSL 3 implementation was vulnerable to it. Read Section 4.3 of that paper for more details.

Their recommendation to prevent such attacks?

The simplest fix is to require that a SSL implementation receive a change cipher spec message before accepting a finished message.

They recognize this as a basic flaw in the specification of SSL, which of course was corrected in TLS:

Some readers might complain that this requirement ought to be obvious with a moment’s reflection, even if it is not explicitly stated in the SSL specification. We cannot fault such clarity of vision.

In general, this is not the only attack that can be prevented by the "checksum" argument, or what Bellare and Rogaway call matching conversations, where both client and server verify encryption and authentication before transmitting sensitive data. See Section II-1 for another.

Conclusion: sending an encrypted Finished after change_cipher_spec is the simplest solution to protect the change_cipher_spec message.

• I do not understand the 'checksum' argument. How does successful decryption of an extra message benefits? The RFC just states what the implementations have to do i.e. send Finished after ChangeCipherSepc and decrypt, verify it at recipient. RFC does not tell what does encryption of Finished message achieve ... May 19, 2017 at 3:33
• The Finished message is the first message that the server and client transmit fully under the agreed-upon cipher spec, with all the server and client nonces and keys from the master secret. Before sensitive data is sent, you need a test message to verify that encryption, decryption, and authentication work. You verify there's no mismatch with them all at once with by encrypting and HMACing Finished.
– user47922
May 19, 2017 at 5:46
• What does the verification of encryption by using a test message accomplish? How would it have weaken TLS security guarantees had FINISHED message would been un-encrypted? May 19, 2017 at 11:18