IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] [saag] [websec] [kitten] HTTP authentication: the next generation

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Thu, 06 January 2011 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6193A6CD8 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:14:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.369
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.392, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWjxIQPQWtlh for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:14:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8DC3A6CED for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.88]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p06IGH0Q010677 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:16:18 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1294337778; bh=tOrSd+BaLDGYpH9HsyVCcafu+oA=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=nhcwIisUO7oAkg66A8rDBAHv5zLtVTeKxgwhQrGOkd1tM+8dUs0mMmYzkOc12BMsQ vRwjIWFLBdC/r+miufS3g==
Received: from qyk10 (qyk10.prod.google.com [10.241.83.138]) by wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p06IAUWp010579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:16:16 -0800
Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10so17933959qyk.1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:16:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ztYKyBRdnEWKJBsTrbql2FglzmqVhvAw6IaIUfdkB7w=; b=BxXEavN29UHyrsu3lhFh4wtPxqyyfTe7rbvsAK9O9yU8bnoEzoceDOSlCK6QPcd3dG ll62XjLsoR18WS0HmO5Q==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=FCRb0q97ppk3nPf0vWscaA0RV1zaAaw54FU7Dt4Ih57ZFclnJC0C5VptKxZu+gFzH7 b9AIO/Z0ax7qhwFKRnlQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.215.135 with SMTP id he7mr3108759qcb.104.1294337776341; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:16:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.88.137 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:16:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101060802120.6107@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <4D02AF81.6000907@stpeter.im> <p06240809c928635499e8@10.20.30.150> <ADDEC353-8DE6-408C-BC75-A50B795E2F6C@checkpoint.com> <78BD0B98-0F20-478B-85F1-DBB45691EB0D@padl.com> <4D0479E3.4050508@gmail.com> <4D04D7D6.4090105@isode.com> <A23730A9-728B-4533-96D7-0B62496CC98A@checkpoint.com> <4D051731.1020400@isode.com> <2230EA03-32C5-4D34-BC6B-304E813BE3A7@gbiv.com> <AANLkTimWZz-uOQ3whayCgAzHRXJLWh7qYjiqW7h8-MK7@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik5wsudwLN=+KzvXoA4MStG2K72fA5giKd2NqGV@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101060802120.6107@egate.xpasc.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:16:15 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=zX+8fd7yZYsOprnJeu7L63GW9L_RzZfFZnH6e@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:38:45 -0800
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, websec <websec@ietf.org>, "kitten@ietf.org" <kitten@ietf.org>, "http-auth@ietf.org" <http-auth@ietf.org>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [saag] [websec] [kitten] HTTP authentication: the next generation
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:14:13 -0000

On 6 January 2011 16:03, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
>> The answer to this problem is hard, since it brings us back to taking the UI
>> out of the sites hands.
>
> Which is only helpful if you can somehow gaurantee that the user agent
> software hasn't been compromised. Not something I'd bet on...

That's rather overstating it. It's perfectly helpful when the UA
software hasn't been compromised, which is a non-zero fraction of the
time.

When the UA s/w has been compromised I'm quite happy to fail to fix
the problem: the right answer to that is to improve the robustness of
the UA.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email