Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an http/2 over TLS world
"Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Wed, 15 February 2017 21:23 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E28129B6C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:23:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pmoo_RqZfXoV for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:23:13 -0800 (PST)
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 9E91E129862 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ce70h-0008Et-7d for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:21:11 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:21:11 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ce70h-0008Et-7d@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1ce70b-0008Cn-UZ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:21:05 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([122.56.26.1]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_ARCFOUR_128_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1ce70S-0007fe-0A for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:21:00 +0000
Received: From [192.168.1.146] (unverified [192.168.1.146]) by SMTP Server [192.168.1.3] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v9.0.4 (Build 5915)) with SMTP id <0000965467@smtp.qbik.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:20:25 +1300
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:20:25 +0000
Message-Id: <em92f8e0f9-2510-4b0d-90a1-d009c704b010@bodybag>
In-Reply-To: <em20615289-1fb4-436d-b62b-946629056888@bodybag>
References: <emde1bfa93-84c0-49f7-83a4-b9bed24e0276@bodybag> <20170215193126.C090E1F063@welho-filter1.welho.com> <embaebd293-2d9d-4e45-9048-2763e892ceb0@bodybag> <CAOdDvNpR5i4xu9viAXD2ioG5W096xAHz4EHzByQL8ZN4FO-sTg@mail.gmail.com> <emcb751fb1-f781-46c5-b888-0af8b1c2af7f@bodybag> <CAJ_4DfSZT_7LhWyt=O1J7i8pGSpv619ekr5OSk75LeQnwsEHRA@mail.gmail.com> <emd82135a2-56a0-49c9-908f-109a740d7441@bodybag> <CAJ_4DfTgzzqJKy1QL2YGS7FyaECBA_GeQt5+gn4hrQnB6h3FTg@mail.gmail.com> <em2b16b855-c719-422a-9488-6c34893e2432@bodybag> <BN6PR03MB27084197C5FFEBD76E19C738875B0@bn6pr03mb2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <em1aa98e8c-7ba3-4cdb-a4da-9277a0e7a0dd@bodybag> <em20615289-1fb4-436d-b62b-946629056888@bodybag>
Reply-To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/7.0.27943.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MBF56940CF-288A-4FA0-A8A5-F19F05483DAC"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=122.56.26.1; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.611, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1ce70S-0007fe-0A 6f7cee7c6459eae73cb54593839ee371
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an http/2 over TLS world
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/em92f8e0f9-2510-4b0d-90a1-d009c704b010@bodybag>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33543
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>
Edge is about the same without the button and a more millenial-friendly translation of the IE text. FF on the other hand states the actual problem, that the proxy refused to make the connection. I guess I'll be recommending FF from now on to my customers with this problem. Adrien ------ Original Message ------ From: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> To: "Mike Bishop" <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>; "Ryan Hamilton" <rch@google.com>; "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Sent: 16/02/2017 10:14:58 AM Subject: Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an http/2 over TLS world >the one for IE is even worse. It offers a connection troubleshooter >button. > >After exhorting the user to try 3 useless pointless tasks that will not >help at all. > >What a time waster! > >Adrien > >------ Original Message ------ >From: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> >To: "Mike Bishop" <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>; "Ryan Hamilton" ><rch@google.com>; "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> >Sent: 16/02/2017 10:11:53 AM >Subject: Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an http/2 over TLS >world > >> >>attached is what I get when I block https to youtube without MitM >> >>I'm sorry but even a dialog box that said "proxy denied connection", >>and even just printed the status line would be more useful than this: >> >>"The webpage at https://www.youtube.com/ might be temporarily down or >>it may have moved permanently to a new web address" >> >>this is PURE FICTION. >> >>It serves only to confuse users, and cause them to look in the wrong >>places for the problem. >> >>A savvy user may see the "ERR_TUNNEL_CONNECTION_FAILED" and realise >>it's something to do with a proxy. >> >>but the connection didn't fail, it was refused. >> >>This is just a source of pain for all users. There's no excuse to be >>lying to browser users like this. >> >>Adrien >> >> >>------ Original Message ------ >>From: "Mike Bishop" <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> >>To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>; "Ryan Hamilton" >><rch@google.com>; "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> >>Sent: 16/02/2017 9:52:14 AM >>Subject: RE: The future of forward proxy servers in an http/2 over TLS >>world >> >>>No, CONNECT is HTTP, full stop. The use of that method is defined >>>for HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2, and even HTTP/QUIC. You can speak HTTP/2 to a >>>proxy if you want – you get a multiplexed connection to the proxy, >>>and what the proxy uses on the back-end is opaque to you. >>> >>> >>> >>>I’m somewhat sympathetic to the complaint that we’ve doubled down on >>>two-party communication when there are legitimate use cases for >>>having a third party with some level of access to the traffic. The >>>problem is that these use cases run the gamut as to how much access >>>they need, and they’re equally applicable to illegitimate cases. (Or >>>rather, cases *I* perceive as illegitimate, since that’s a policy >>>judgement and not a technical one.) >>> >>> >>> >>>Groups such as IEEE’s Encrypted Traffic Inspection working group are >>>trying to build something like this, but they make me nervous. You >>>can’t build a mechanism into a protocol that restricts it to virtuous >>>uses – see RFC3751 for a good example here. The best that can be >>>achieved is to surface to the user an authenticated identity of who’s >>>spying on their traffic – but we all know the outcome of user dialogs >>>asking “would you like to agree to some technical gobbledygook, or >>>would you like to not see your dancing kittens?” >>> >>> >>> >>>From: Adrien de Croy [mailto:adrien@qbik.com] >>>Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 12:40 PM >>>To: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>; ietf-http-wg@w3.org >>>Subject: Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an http/2 over >>>TLS world >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>------ Original Message ------ >>> >>>From: "Ryan Hamilton" <rch@google.com> >>> >>>To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> >>> >>>Sent: 16/02/2017 9:26:37 AM >>> >>>Subject: Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an http/2 over >>>TLS world >>> >>> >>> >>>>I'm not sure what a "Trusted proxy" means in this context. If the >>>>proxy can mint certificates that are trusted by the browser, then >>>>the proxy can terminate TLS connections at the proxy and impersonate >>>>the origin. This is a supported use-case in Chrome (and other >>>>browsers). >>>> >>>minting certs is a MitM function. I wasn't referring to that. >>> >>> >>> >>>But if the proxy can mint certs that are trusted by the browser, the >>>question is how is that. The proxy would need to be using a signing >>>cert that is trusted by the browser, and how did it get installed in >>>the browser? >>> >>> >>> >>>In any case as per my original post, MitM is getting squeezed out by >>>HSTS, PKP etc. Instead of promoting an arms-race between client >>>vendors and proxy vendors (e.g. our current next step is to attack >>>HSTS and PKP to enable us to continue to display block pages that >>>don't cause our customers headaches) how about we work together to >>>allow decent secure blocking of requests? >>> >>> >>> >>>Blocking is a completely legitimate need in corporate networks and >>>others. >>> >>> >>> >>>Currently the balance of power has swung to the user, whether that's >>>a child surfing where he/she shouldn't or whoever. >>> >>> >>> >>>Blocking has become less precise, and the way it's going will have to >>>be done at the IP or TCP level. The lower the level you block at, >>>the worse the user experience, and the more time wasted in >>>organisations chasing phantoms mis-reported by browsers. >>> >>> >>> >>>Does h2 even support a proxy? CONNECT is HTTP/1 >>> >>> >>> >>>Adrien >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>how did they trust the proxy? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm suggesting trusted proxy, which means the proxy would need to >>>>>use a cert trusted by the client. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'd go further and say we need to do better than proxy auto-detect >>>>>as well - it needs to be secured. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Adrien >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>------ Original Message ------ >>>>> >>>>>From: "Ryan Hamilton" <rch@google.com> >>>>> >>>>>To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> >>>>> >>>>>Sent: 16/02/2017 9:22:06 AM >>>>> >>>>>Subject: Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an http/2 over >>>>>TLS world >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>We already support this with WinGate and I've verified it with >>>>>>>Chrome and Firefox. In that case couldn't the client trust an >>>>>>>error response body from CONNECT? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>We used to do this in Chrome, but removed it because of the >>>>>>potential for phishing. Here's just on example >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Imagine that at user has their browser configured to do proxy auto >>>>>>discovery. They walk into a cafe and join a wireless network which >>>>>>sends their traffic to a malicious proxy. The user types >>>>>>https://mail.example.com/, and is presented with a CONNECT error >>>>>>page whose contents look exactly like the actual mail.example.com >>>>>>login page to which they dutifully type their username and >>>>>>password. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>
- The future of forward proxy servers in an http/2 … Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Dave Dolson
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Kari Hurtta
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Alex Rousskov
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Patrick McManus
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Patrick McManus
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Ryan Hamilton
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Patrick McManus
- RE: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Mike Bishop
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Alex Rousskov
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Kari Hurtta
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Alex Rousskov
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Tom Bergan
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Alex Rousskov
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Kari Hurtta
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Tom Bergan
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Roland Zink
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Ryan Hamilton
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Amos Jeffries
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Kari Hurtta
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Kari Hurtta
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Willy Tarreau
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Tom Bergan
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… nicolas.mailhot
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Francesco Chemolli
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Chris Bentzel
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Mark Nottingham
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Alex Rousskov
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Mark Nottingham
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Alex Rousskov
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Willy Tarreau
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Patrick McManus
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Willy Tarreau
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Kari Hurtta
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Alex Rousskov
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Roland Zink
- UI | Re: The future of forward proxy servers in a… Kari Hurtta
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Poul-Henning Kamp
- forward HTTPS proxy | Re: The future of forward p… Kari Hurtta
- RE: forward HTTPS proxy | Re: The future of forwa… Mike Bishop
- Re: forward HTTPS proxy | Re: The future of forwa… Alex Rousskov
- Re: forward HTTPS proxy | Re: The future of forwa… Kari Hurtta
- Re: forward HTTPS proxy | Re: The future of forwa… Kari Hurtta
- Re: forward HTTPS proxy | Re: The future of forwa… Kari Hurtta
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Adrien de Croy
- Re: The future of forward proxy servers in an htt… Tom Bergan