Re: Ciphersuite requirements ext#26
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 20 August 2014 00:02 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE321A898A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 gUsriShP1Q_L for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED21A1A0037 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XJtJo-0000Yr-65 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XJtJo-0000Yr-65@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XJtJV-0000VJ-A2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 23:59:41 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XJtJU-0000th-F4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 23:59:41 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.123.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2C4722E1F4; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:59:16 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVXt0EoHW5TSJmYy+Y5qQt5ocuBQ+eMzPdaraD5rZDHng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 09:59:13 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FC74AEF6-1FE4-42D2-AE40-6628872568C1@mnot.net>
References: <CABkgnnVXt0EoHW5TSJmYy+Y5qQt5ocuBQ+eMzPdaraD5rZDHng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.067, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XJtJU-0000th-F4 e3d7f04dc549e6bf2ca89ee228f16a67
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ciphersuite requirements ext#26
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/FC74AEF6-1FE4-42D2-AE40-6628872568C1@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26666
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
So, are we saying that oppsec defers to the specific protocol negotiated for any ciphersuite requirements (e.g., h2 has a very specific high bar, while http/1.1-over-tls has none)? Cheers, On 20 Aug 2014, at 4:23 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> From the issue (https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/26) > > Section 3 implies that there are no cipher suite requirements on Opp > Sec, but it'd be good to discuss and formalise this. May require > tweaks to HTTP/2 (which places requirements on use of TLS, not TLS > with "https"). > > -- > > PHK will disagree, but I think that we're OK here. Better to have a > single robust profile than to permit exceptions. There are several > problems with exceptions or variations: > > * oppsec will be detectable as such to a passive observer > > * a single configurations is more robust; better to use a single code > path and far better not to risk weakening "https" accidentally > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Ciphersuite requirements ext#26 Martin Thomson
- Re: Ciphersuite requirements ext#26 Mark Nottingham
- Re: Ciphersuite requirements ext#26 Martin Thomson