Re: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme

Chris Bentzel <chris@bentzel.net> Tue, 10 May 2011 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <chris@bentzel.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA902E09A6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 18:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lNIckrdCTrN9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 18:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3256E099D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2011 18:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so735852vxg.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 May 2011 18:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.95.234 with SMTP id dn10mr2056055vdb.66.1304990576740; Mon, 09 May 2011 18:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.108.230 with HTTP; Mon, 9 May 2011 18:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723447581DA9D7@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723447581DA8EA@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <BANLkTik2znRGr_OyAWi10SLDzwA8rTXWrQ@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723447581DA9D7@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 21:22:56 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=_0LrJzapYastwN12fdLNNL5SK8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Bentzel <chris@bentzel.net>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d0174c30a9a04a2e1cb86
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 01:23:01 -0000

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>wrote;wrote:

>
> As for the body hash, we’re looking for a way to make it useful for
> form-encoded bodies and API calls. It isn’t really meant for large file
> uploads. We’re trying to implement it in the browser and will make decisions
> based on that experience.
>

This may be reasonable. auth-int on Digest is not supported by many browsers
due to the buffering concerns. The MAC spec seems to allow the client to
choose whether it wants body integrity on a per-request basis, so some
heuristic based on body size might be reasonable given your use case.