Cookies and Pervasive Monitoring
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 22 February 2016 04:31 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 3888E1B2AF1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:31:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, 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 A0CmA5SYUefA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:31:17 -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 0E5E01B29C9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:31:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aXi6X-0001FR-Jr for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:28:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:28:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aXi6X-0001FR-Jr@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1aXi6T-0001Ek-F8 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:28:09 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1aXi6R-0004Xp-S7 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:28:08 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86F6A22E271 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:27:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3BB48C48-3D18-45E4-87B1-483DE33C1DAA@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:27:44 +1100
To: HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
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=-8.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.311, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aXi6R-0004Xp-S7 e6028f917cf1e3eb4d17ec9e61cc162e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Cookies and Pervasive Monitoring
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/3BB48C48-3D18-45E4-87B1-483DE33C1DAA@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31085
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>
As part of revising the Cookie spec <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265>, we need to consider the Pervasive Monitoring impact, as per <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258>: """ Those developing IETF specifications need to be able to describe how they have considered PM, and, if the attack is relevant to the work to be published, be able to justify related design decisions. This does not mean a new "pervasive monitoring considerations" section is needed in IETF documentation. It means that, if asked, there needs to be a good answer to the question "Is pervasive monitoring relevant to this work and if so, how has it been considered?" """ At this point, I'd like people to start thinking about this, because it's pretty clear that long-lived cookies do have the potential for PM impact, particularly on unencrypted connections. As with other changes to this spec, we'd want what we decide to be actually implemented, so if we see proposals in this space, they'll need to be backed by some expressions of intent to implement before we adopt them. Regards, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Cookies and Pervasive Monitoring Mark Nottingham