Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very bad in 2015...

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Wed, 01 April 2015 12:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 2E4771A8A81 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 05:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 wzLxyBBLXvLl for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A42511A1B64 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YdH6a-0002Zt-Bv for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:46:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:46:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YdH6a-0002Zt-Bv@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1YdH6Y-0002Z2-1t for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:46:42 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1YdH6Q-0003J0-Dp for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:46:41 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id t31Bk8p0007835; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 13:46:08 +0200
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:46:08 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150401114608.GA7832@1wt.eu>
References: <D141A3E5.4146E%evyncke@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D141A3E5.4146E%evyncke@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.023, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YdH6Q-0003J0-Dp 3a190c7230d269ef073f9ea2b19d3143
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very bad in 2015...
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20150401114608.GA7832@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29174
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>

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 11:32:05AM +0000, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> In the era of scarce IPv4 addresses, servers should NOT link the HTTP session
> cookies to the user-agent IP address...
> 
> I have posted in the IETF V6OPS WG the following:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-v6ops-6.pdf
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vyncke-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-cookie
> 
> In short, heavy use of NAT and/or dual-stack (IPv4/IPv6) can cause a change
> of user-agent address => lost of session.
> 
> Any suggestion on how this can be addressed? I know at least two major web
> sites in Belgium that removed IPv6 from their web site due to this issue (and
> their security department not wanting to unlink IP address from the session
> cookies)

I'm amazed people still do that in 2015, I had the idea to do it in 1999
until I realized it was stupid and never did it! So I'd have guessed that
16 years later everyone would have also figured this! If IP addresses
were stable during a session, cookies would not be needed, the address
would be used instead. So it's precisely because addresses are unreliable
that cookies exist.

Too bad people don't learn from others' mistakes...

Willy