Re: [apps-discuss] [http-state] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 07 June 2011 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 5E2D51F0C39; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 BxdZ496aZXFB; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a28.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6481F0C36; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a28.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a28.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35D11B4078; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=cryptonector.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= cryptonector.com; b=w8IK2aGMWRP9XrsrgfCDepvGOFww6Y8qqUz9zVWp6f3M rryvqeEjSMsmkbkLFA1ty80S+oOFsZ6DWgKjlplQ+3cW/BMa0Gy7bgLrEulPkuqt V+9Smxm24Qu3/7jHi3M8CEIV2bofVEnulb4YmpT9qq7A4OvIY95tJVofpmFENMU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=btKLDXJPPjTq3XZvKHfUdtb6H/A=; b=NzPxHv8LHsd 6CJrUKAMDSHIJIQ9+86/zXngVBVfNmvh/tc++dv2TfUgZAWFYJ6huSam02gQzzAQ 0JBS51TterCU1Rxn0M1Ahr6AVasLptnQ8rH/ixjkAMPWHgPPyieel25RvfnORUlj wtPVAov7F+9/wZXT5EFWuLt575INmwXw=
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a28.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96C8C1B406F; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so2920439pzk.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.37.3 with SMTP id u3mr295077pbj.456.1307468153080; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.50.39 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <09c801cc24c2$a05bae00$e1130a00$@packetizer.com>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723447581DA8EA@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <BANLkTikpQNyQdr9oWHhtJ7a7d-4ri0CNdA@mail.gmail.com> <09c801cc24c2$a05bae00$e1130a00$@packetizer.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 12:35:52 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTin30NVzYVV1m4gmyh42DWs-nSQpAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Adam Barth <adam@adambarth.com>, http-state@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [http-state] 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, 07 Jun 2011 17:35:55 -0000

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
> Nico,
>
> Sorry for coming into this so late, but I just saw this message.
>
> I don't have all of the background, but when I saw this message header and
> some of the dialog, it seems there is a desire to provide some level of
> authentication to requests and/or responses between the clients and servers.
>
> Gonzalo and I worked on this:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-salgueiro-secure-state-management-04
>
> This may not be entirely complete, but the idea was to allow a client and
> server to establish an association so that requests and responses could be
> authenticated.  Is this something along the lines of what you are
> discussing, or is this an entirely different application?

I'm completely on-board with session state[*].  My comments were
particularly in regards to threat models.  I believe that
eavesdroppers and active attackers both need to be considered,
particularly as we have so many open wifi networks.

To me the simplest way to address the Internet threat model is to
always use TLS (except, maybe, for images and such elements that have
little or no security value, though one must be careful when making
that determination) and to use channel binding.  See the I-D
referenced below.

[*]  See, for example: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-williams-rest-gss-00.txt

Nico
--