IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Captive-portals] CAPPORT meeting at IETF95 in Buenos Aires.

David Illsley <davidillsley@gmail.com> Tue, 16 February 2016 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <davidillsley@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D901B2FB8 for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:59:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id emAAcuFtLtTT for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF41C1B2FAF for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:59:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id g62so161883065wme.0 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:59:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Dqwp8h8cTSkffIGN96sOg/p14QTkgaAYqrgg2LlNjEM=; b=FnsuDbwSP9FCu/9qM4J5oyeJE+1cpzj81bOxTYI5JTFGoVptrjKVJpxRTO40d1lkDN m7HwcgtW9NqH/rFySSbpEB1pfXN6Ba8zX4s5UPIQW3mLgejX7fVlYat2q/bge9cUEuF8 QHdhwEhumonrcjX/8nOCZkrkFFv618ZnX0XTZ63FbkGT/glBpHTxbVYQQqJx6rCmIHFy Ry08+WDgCXz3abjLhso2tdBdb3x2rMUOFh323XGjg6ry2Hs72kZ+Bmigos3/UB9TCO/Z dG0GP+HYL/qhPN1NqXlADlvu+0xwD5iaU8OFkD11I+zpT8eRrEFaUakGeelyRaU1AFTK Hfvg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Dqwp8h8cTSkffIGN96sOg/p14QTkgaAYqrgg2LlNjEM=; b=JbuknxIsf+yMVhZ7UnPtPtzIROPqzZ5ETyhFURr0taroVUj5h3Cx49eHZVXvYYpXof BJH9aucW2+NXVBOYPCml/Rig/4+n/Y24kt/cYIyPd1n1QaH6asKkDYJbjcjnqazqpEbK p0hp+VeU/O3ayfDJKZiRRNaGa7qSCrQjJ4/51d9xs1X5Mk7IGSymhbJkYwjsMl8WD5zN VHg75otu0qqmKH2guyV5qarLYdIIbsSGiuwPcZhwyYeU52KTcKjLtjKlKPg5JfUUKayf zjm/3zutPzuyTE3Fxxnj1HEKEOJt6HN2GMAGyPTlUZ1emmp2EzWeyl5J0WcZJChV80/7 fCXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOT5xA7wQi7Lg2oG/PgCF43wCbzSLRDvV28Dm3gk4XXTu/1NFjSLOaZUDBedPYMTxjLP9d3DkNFgkDloCQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.205.138 with SMTP id lg10mr23304602wjc.153.1455641972226; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:59:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.81.71 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:59:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54AB22DD-ADF8-4E2D-ADB6-345A16A2FDA2@mnot.net>
References: <CAHw9_iJbQbkmGRcjn8A_agvtQqxK97FJy2caX_AceDn729y_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <54AB22DD-ADF8-4E2D-ADB6-345A16A2FDA2@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:59:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+E3Fw2R=fUe0ufVZGW5sSYe1VG1uXcbsVaXNBFu0OvHWR+Cng@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Illsley <davidillsley@gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bb70a1eacc45a052be60e74"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/8XR6x0Bc1FYqllYIEva74Io-Kdw>
Cc: "captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] CAPPORT meeting at IETF95 in Buenos Aires.
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <captive-portals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/captive-portals/>
List-Post: <mailto:captive-portals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:59:36 -0000

I'm interested in the Sandboxing point in section 4. I understand these to
be designed as a pro-user security feature. In general I don't trust random
network devices in hotels so I'll use a VPN. That leaves me open to malware
attacks from the captive portal [1]. Deciding to put captive portals into a
more-restrictive-than-usual sandbox then seems reasonable to me.

Can you explain the problems caused by sandboxing (I don't think I've ever
experienced them)?
David

[1] http://www.wired.com/2014/11/darkhotel-malware/

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> > On 16 Feb 2016, at 4:46 AM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Nottingham is already working on a "problem statement" type draft
> with outlines some of this, but we'd like more viewpoints/ discussions.
>
> Please!
>
> > His initial submission is here: "Before You Log In, Here's A Brief
> Message From Our Sponsors!" - draft-nottingham-capport-problem (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-capport-problem/)
>
> ... and that's really just a regurgitation of what we previously put
> together at <https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki/Captive-Portals>.  If
> people have suggestions, corrections, pull requests, etc. I'm all ears.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email