Re: Alt-Svc Privacy Concerns

Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> Sun, 10 April 2016 19:06 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 ED8AD12D0C9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 lquiwNQBIgia for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:05:59 -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 64CC212D163 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1apKbs-0006jn-Lj for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:01:24 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:01:24 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1apKbs-0006jn-Lj@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <nygren@gmail.com>) id 1apKbp-0006j2-5D for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:01:21 +0000
Received: from mail-io0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <nygren@gmail.com>) id 1apKbi-0003h3-4v for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:01:18 +0000
Received: by mail-io0-f181.google.com with SMTP id u185so17262191iod.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=jtG0hGxU8UMkoHC8j2fyganyXvPIM/KxJCWdlcti+sU=; b=IkVtWEMDlG2rRzEpscbnY2cfjN3+SOzAEh3AFrR89+mlY0Y7Xwte8URVjk5Ygi2Wqs GYA5D8tcuaobsxR6N8CVrpSJu0dyt/I+rTuWEEdeQf7+uQ3cPZzgxiGJT4ju+MyUqzv2 aacOtKr1k7S0cYKO6QNyiuuf14JbcBh85Cde6reAArv/ov8KdUgKCHKSvKg+Kq8iX/jX AUsplA7PgWnIIbFGlOlFCW/9RZSShTO/1DKTauuToDbUROEsUj5aUSC4cDowHNw7sjJe cv6nvrjVga0CSw478L+ISKCV42NKrNzb0paAkyUoO6xPqtembeIHdfGQA6CoCVcvSj4k ufOg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=jtG0hGxU8UMkoHC8j2fyganyXvPIM/KxJCWdlcti+sU=; b=YNLpLOEk8sbQOBrh/X7FIJ2YRFVZjv8Ap0BMgP7x7Eq1yiIQeUnd7ecWufMt1fWHEY uD6V4ZAz5Fyw5/uUxRIeOyPv7DzbZzyLBth0mvD4yqslo5SFNaN8lGX/cSL5nGSpULEL OJO8ZcZIVdxjqH/0Cc2ymJwBcu3C8SulGJmgqsOtbax5gxI2wVNAg6ZNtnTfPIPWciFz BVgVSWmLxf+2gCAHFE/a3bznbjyzx5AuFDXQIuiC5ITcmrwFTr0DM/JSZhWNelf1V7GX B6cg6B8gyoAZbo0KBTzdDSfgga9AbIbPJjCk5dtExXiW6Oqd876ya8BGORB3/Ms5NLJf NJ6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIZlUrh9tfKHGi5T4jqce5SgP+4Q9c8qS9uttxHrjYM1Vl5prEClpZQJb8JGUutRVkyGKbV1wqQ8jqy/Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.13.65 with SMTP id 62mr20033928ion.186.1460314848279; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: nygren@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.200.14 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPofZaEG3gm79CznQuB8RdZb6hXYV7ZiBNTwYj=autVP1=_Cng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPofZaEG3gm79CznQuB8RdZb6hXYV7ZiBNTwYj=autVP1=_Cng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 15:00:48 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5KutkBG_rcCsklvo1eu_LL-FycU
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJgcQuW709jkEA54EJc8dnKiZtuxDC9E530Odrk_S-Ukcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
To: Phil Lello <phil@dunlop-lello.uk>
Cc: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ff0cccac7250530260bce"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.181; envelope-from=nygren@gmail.com; helo=mail-io0-f181.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.676, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1apKbi-0003h3-4v e7c99265618753cd67b19c0855af829a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Alt-Svc Privacy Concerns
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKC-DJgcQuW709jkEA54EJc8dnKiZtuxDC9E530Odrk_S-Ukcg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31413
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 Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Phil Lello <phil@dunlop-lello.uk> wrote:

> I'm concerned that Alt-Svc, especially used like this, is re-introducing
> the sort of privacy issues people have been trying to eliminate with
> cookies for years. Appologies if this has already been discussed and I
> missed it.
>

I don't see the issue here really being with Alt-Svc. Rather, this is
another issue/risk with consolidating requests for multiple origins onto a
single TLS connection that has a valid cert for all of the origins. (I
don't think this was on my list in the slides in B.A. in discussion of the
ORIGIN frame and related topics, but is certainly in that class I'd
issues.)

I'm not sure I see how Alt-Svc actually makes this worse by itself.  I do
agree that when we look at the proposal for adding additional allowed
server certs to a connection that this will certainly be something we'll
want to discuss in more detail (although that is also orthogonal from
Alt-Svc).

A general point (which goes as much to UI behavior as anything) is that the
Secure Connection Info tab in many browsers only shows the CN and buries
the SANs below what users might normally see.  (And even in today's world,
resources embedded in pages are also typically not something users see and
provide many opportunities for active linking of users, such as through
URIs.)

       Erik

(resending with some edits from an email address hopefully on the list ACL)