Deprecate TLS 1.1 Email: Deprecation of TLS 1.1 for Email Submission and Access
Email clients and servers should now require TLS 1.2 or later, not TLS 1.1, for submission and access.
Velvindron, L. and S. Farrell, "Deprecation of TLS 1.1 for Email Submission and Access", RFC 8997, DOI 10.17487/RFC8997, March 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8997>.
@misc{rfc8997,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 8997,
howpublished = {RFC 8997},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC8997},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8997},
author = {L. Velvindron and S. Farrell},
title = {{Deprecation of TLS 1.1 for Email Submission and Access}},
pagetotal = 6,
year = 2021,
month = mar,
} RFC text
Contents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Velvindron
Request for Comments: 8997 cyberstorm.mu
Updates: 8314 S. Farrell
Category: Standards Track Trinity College Dublin
ISSN: 2070-1721 March 2021
Deprecation of TLS 1.1 for Email Submission and Access
Abstract
This specification updates the current recommendation for the use of
the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to provide
confidentiality of email between a Mail User Agent (MUA) and a Mail
Submission Server or Mail Access Server. This document updates RFC
8314.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8997.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Conventions Used in This Document
3. Updates to RFC 8314
4. IANA Considerations
5. Security Considerations
6. References
6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
[RFC8314] defines the minimum recommended version of TLS as version
1.1. Due to the deprecation of TLS 1.1 in [RFC8996], this
recommendation is no longer valid. Therefore, this document updates
[RFC8314] so that the minimum version for TLS is TLS 1.2.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Updates to RFC 8314
OLD:
| 4.1. Deprecation of Services Using Cleartext and TLS Versions
| Less Than 1.1
NEW:
| 4.1. Deprecation of Services Using Cleartext and TLS Versions
| Less Than 1.2
OLD:
| As soon as practicable, MSPs currently supporting Secure Sockets
| Layer (SSL) 2.x, SSL 3.0, or TLS 1.0 SHOULD transition their users
| to TLS 1.1 or later and discontinue support for those earlier
| versions of SSL and TLS.
NEW:
| As soon as practicable, MSPs currently supporting Secure Sockets
| Layer (SSL) 2.x, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, or TLS 1.1 SHOULD transition
| their users to TLS 1.2 or later and discontinue support for those
| earlier versions of SSL and TLS.
In Section 4.1 of [RFC8314], the text should be revised from:
OLD:
| One way is for the server to refuse a ClientHello message from any
| client sending a ClientHello.version field corresponding to any
| version of SSL or TLS 1.0.
NEW:
| One way is for the server to refuse a ClientHello message from any
| client sending a ClientHello.version field corresponding to any
| version of SSL or TLS earlier than TLS 1.2.
OLD:
| It is RECOMMENDED that new users be required to use TLS version
| 1.1 or greater from the start. However, an MSP may find it
| necessary to make exceptions to accommodate some legacy systems
| that support only earlier versions of TLS or only cleartext.
NEW:
| It is RECOMMENDED that new users be required to use TLS version
| 1.2 or greater from the start. However, an MSP may find it
| necessary to make exceptions to accommodate some legacy systems
| that support only earlier versions of TLS or only cleartext.
OLD:
| If, however, an MUA provides such an indication, it MUST NOT
| indicate confidentiality for any connection that does not at least
| use TLS 1.1 with certificate verification and also meet the
| minimum confidentiality requirements associated with that account.
NEW:
| If, however, an MUA provides such an indication, it MUST NOT
| indicate confidentiality for any connection that does not at least
| use TLS 1.2 with certificate verification and also meet the
| minimum confidentiality requirements associated with that account.
OLD
| MUAs MUST implement TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] or later. Earlier TLS and
| SSL versions MAY also be supported, so long as the MUA requires at
| least TLS 1.1 [RFC4346] when accessing accounts that are
| configured to impose minimum confidentiality requirements.
NEW:
| MUAs MUST implement TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] or later, e.g., TLS 1.3
| [RFC8446]. Earlier TLS and SSL versions MAY also be supported, so
| long as the MUA requires at least TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] when accessing
| accounts that are configured to impose minimum confidentiality
| requirements.
OLD:
| The default minimum expected level of confidentiality for all new
| accounts MUST require successful validation of the server's
| certificate and SHOULD require negotiation of TLS version 1.1 or
| greater. (Future revisions to this specification may raise these
| requirements or impose additional requirements to address newly
| discovered weaknesses in protocols or cryptographic algorithms.)
NEW:
| The default minimum expected level of confidentiality for all new
| accounts MUST require successful validation of the server's
| certificate and SHOULD require negotiation of TLS version 1.2 or
| greater. (Future revisions to this specification may raise these
| requirements or impose additional requirements to address newly
| discovered weaknesses in protocols or cryptographic algorithms.)
4. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
5. Security Considerations
The purpose of this document is to document updated recommendations
for using TLS with email services. Those recommendations are based
on [RFC8996].
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8314] Moore, K. and C. Newman, "Cleartext Considered Obsolete:
Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) for Email Submission
and Access", RFC 8314, DOI 10.17487/RFC8314, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8314>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8996] Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
1.1", RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4346, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4346>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Vittorio Bertola and Viktor Dukhovni
for their feedback.
Authors' Addresses
Loganaden Velvindron
cyberstorm.mu
88 Avenue De Plevitz Roches Brunes
71259
Rose Hill
Mauritius
Phone: +230 59762817
Email: logan@cyberstorm.mu
Stephen Farrell
Trinity College Dublin
Dublin
2
Ireland
Phone: +353-1-896-2354
Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
AI ELI5
On this page
§1Why RFC 8314 Needs Updating
RFC 8314 defines the minimum recommended version of TLS for protecting email between a Mail User Agent (MUA) and a mail submission or mail access server as version 1.1. Because TLS 1.1 has since been deprecated in RFC 8996, that recommendation is no longer valid.
This document therefore updates RFC 8314 so that the minimum version for TLS is TLS 1.2. It does nothing else: it introduces no new protocol and no new mechanism.
An older rule said a certain old lock was good enough for email. That lock was later retired, so the rule has to be changed to name a newer lock.
§3The Edits to RFC 8314
The document is written as a list of OLD and NEW text blocks, all in Section 4.1 of RFC 8314 (and the MUA requirements). In each block, the version number 1.1 is replaced by 1.2.
- The section heading changes from 'TLS Versions Less Than 1.1' to 'TLS Versions Less Than 1.2'.
- The recommendation that new users be required to use TLS version 1.1 or greater becomes 1.2 or greater.
- The default minimum confidentiality level for new accounts SHOULD require negotiation of TLS version 1.2 or greater, and it MUST still require successful validation of the server's certificate.
It is a find-and-replace job. Everywhere the old rule said 'version 1.1', the new rule says 'version 1.2'.
| Topic | RFC 8314 said | RFC 8997 says |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum TLS for new users | TLS 1.1 or greater | TLS 1.2 or greater |
| Versions MSPs should drop THIS RFC | SSL 2.x, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0 | SSL 2.x, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1 |
| MUA minimum for protected accounts | At least TLS 1.1 | At least TLS 1.2 |
§3.1What Providers Should Do
Mail service providers (MSPs) that still support SSL 2.x, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1 SHOULD move their users to TLS 1.2 or later as soon as practicable, and stop supporting the earlier versions. The old text stopped at TLS 1.0; the new text adds TLS 1.1 to the list to be dropped.
One way to enforce this is for the server to refuse a ClientHello message from any client sending a ClientHello.version field that corresponds to any version of SSL or TLS earlier than TLS 1.2. New users SHOULD be required to use TLS 1.2 or greater from the start, although an MSP may still make exceptions for legacy systems that support only earlier versions of TLS or only cleartext.
Mail providers should switch their customers to the newer lock and stop accepting the old ones. They can turn away anyone who shows up with an old lock, though they may make exceptions for very old devices.
§3.2What Mail Programs Must Do
MUAs MUST implement TLS 1.2 or later, and the document now gives TLS 1.3 (RFC 8446) as an example of a later version. Earlier TLS and SSL versions MAY also be supported, as long as the MUA requires at least TLS 1.2 when accessing accounts that are configured to impose minimum confidentiality requirements.
If an MUA gives the user an indication of confidentiality, it MUST NOT claim confidentiality for any connection that does not at least use TLS 1.2 with certificate verification and also meet the minimum requirements of that account.
A mail app must know how to use the newer lock. It may not show the 'safe' sign unless the newer lock is on and the app has checked who it is talking to.
§5Security and IANA Considerations
The security section is short. The purpose of the document is to record updated recommendations for using TLS with email services, and those recommendations are based on RFC 8996. The document has no IANA actions.
The reason for the change is simply that the older lock was officially retired. Nothing new needs to be registered anywhere.