Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-frame-04
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 28 November 2017 00:33 UTC
Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F84129427 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:33:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=Y9crSwI9; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=bj/QQaRt
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 vIpxP2mW8o4c for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:33:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BF84128AA1 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:33:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7B720F66; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:33:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:33:32 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=gjuAd8Gg59O0D9DMYK7WgRXjK7vUL 7f0Cb1aIf3P6wU=; b=Y9crSwI9/179rSPIC2nmlQoYhuPbfL5DTbUGVpI77aFo1 oO+MwFzB//ryr9YpDfQWWsP05wOE2KoTuzXZffOWD0jE2X6Ehjnl1a9GAKHP7lv3 yulXuZXmbwbA5VWiO2tzetBH3Pl1glABpSpi6BSUikPtRxEg2gPpKSFF1pDCNBeu 5tTSydND4r7AJfJX0FqFTbnlqkNgMtEaIn1qsYKvYIBdXuIe9GicSDlHzkySrgcg QvDvuNGvbFx8eR7mOYe0dUOfU62uyW+aHTBc3BDrst/wT5om3FjDMQfKYK298+Fv ISJw6t5jMMfyvGmAHa7g0OkJjw1Pc7tmRYPwaGzLQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=gjuAd8 Gg59O0D9DMYK7WgRXjK7vUL7f0Cb1aIf3P6wU=; b=bj/QQaRtf8mS89mIz0KOwN GgddWnnnqN9Lj3GMnHxVOWOOadLbngCe6z27CwdT5IVvG+NBqgis/uNSSQWGdIam 2mMu3UoeqHylx7bFpquJjniFSmUzdLlX7ZY1Wb8mwDkMhnIbpOWqK68A9TRsnns+ mgtqZdsY0+V8SE3Vb7jBu60MtIIldvr7zBeACqdwqCcqObI4iQgUQuBaNhu7DI3b Vbpu4nvob0wHSgidnWBHBWGx/lVcTs8OQX+0fAFDxvdQeTQ4A5j2dDOljQ+NuAE3 Tm+SNku2ki2t0DvdRM3fuU7ysLuqGhs4wlyrW3ZDWtCmA6s3FPF+kaCRvmjQghWw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:3K4cWpWuE_6TapIOB8ix9YX2cgYJcj_XF-FGs67DwxhclEaV_lOWYw>
Received: from [192.168.1.18] (cpe-124-188-19-231.hdbq1.win.bigpond.net.au [124.188.19.231]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6A1C224108; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:33:31 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <7c23613c-8c8e-6218-ba9f-f0bd1aea6e9c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:33:27 +1100
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E6E0B76A-D70C-4E6A-80B3-F8ED613C274E@mnot.net>
References: <151166787103.16046.10259096251205147245@ietfa.amsl.com> <E3172984-2411-4AB0-B53D-8DC4800B51AA@mnot.net> <7c23613c-8c8e-6218-ba9f-f0bd1aea6e9c@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/0TJ77SSU1NwClx5F231RIzQblQ0>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-frame-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:33:36 -0000
Thanks again. Please see: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/871a80d12aa > On 27 Nov 2017, at 1:05 pm, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > On 27/11/2017 12:38, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Hi Brian, >> >> Thanks for the review. Responses below. >> >>> On 26 Nov 2017, at 2:44 pm, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >> [...] >>> Minor Issues: >>> ------------- >>> >>>> 2.1. Syntax >>> ... >>>> Origin: An OPTIONAL sequence of characters ... that the >>>> sender believes this connection is or could be authoritative for. >>> >>> So, that implies that all data in the ORIGIN frame might be false. >>> Doesn't that deserve a bit of a health warning at the beginning of the >>> Security Considerations? >> >> The first paragraph of SC is already: >> >> """ >> Clients that blindly trust the ORIGIN frame's contents will be >> vulnerable to a large number of attacks. See Section 2.4 for mitigations. >> """ >> >> What would you suggest? >> >>> Also, using the word "believes" of a server >>> is strange. How would the server acquire uncertain knowledge in the >>> first place, and what algorithm would decide what it "believes"? >> >> This is to emphasise that ORIGIN is advisory only -- it does not constitute proof (crypto does that). > > Right. But I think it's the anthropomorphic choice of word that triggered me. If you said "that the sender asserts this connection is or could be authoritative for" I think I'd have nothing further to say, since it's clearly an assertion that needs to be checked. > >> >>> Appendix A doesn't show any sign of a client checking whether an >>> Origin-Entry is real. >> >> As per Section 2.4, it isn't checked when the origin set is created or updated; it's checked when the value is used. > > OK > >> >> >>>> 2.3. The Origin Set >>> ... >>>> o Host: the value sent in Server Name Indication (SNI, [RFC6066] >>>> Section 3), converted to lower case >>> >>> In that reference: >>> >>>>> Literal IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are not permitted in "HostName". >>> >>> Is that an intended or unintended restriction for the ORIGIN frame? >>> In any case it should probably be mentioned explicitly to avoid confusion. >>> (If IPv6 literals were allowed, they might be very convenient for server >>> load balancing. But RFC6066 excludes that.) >> >> Good catch. I don't think there's cause for confusion here (the text there isn't about what can go on the wire), but there is a corner case we haven't covered (when a client that supports SNI omits it because it's an IP literal). >> >> My inclination there is to say that the host is the SNI value or the server IP if SNI is missing; what do people think? > >> From this reviewer's peanut gallery seat, that makes sense. > > Brian > >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >> >> -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-h… Brian Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Alissa Cooper