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

Max Bruce <max.bruce12@gmail.com> Sat, 04 April 2015 20:51 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 622A41A8750 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 13:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 KWpsbLE09p-8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 13:51:53 -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 523F91A874E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 13:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YeUzK-0007G4-79 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:48:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:48:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YeUzK-0007G4-79@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <max.bruce12@gmail.com>) id 1YeUzF-0007A7-R7 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:48:13 +0000
Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <max.bruce12@gmail.com>) id 1YeUzE-0004Vq-So for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:48:13 +0000
Received: by iedfl3 with SMTP id fl3so1170888ied.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=M9XQDhIbDf7nYezHLIzwln7XvQhoTBWhSTT/swEiQwg=; b=icm9KDorJKNRmqqdYyTbQ4gKrsvCKWmrqvEToZZnciPyjaZO9SK3LA4vSocdA41n8Z TVZSPMG+sisevkRXTxL8lzRdLxRSZQXiQpuuDiGpgqOTsRXqRjAd0asOc2N8jcFMXTxL 9c92cZ9Crm4Z7qDBu3FYC4woGCwITwsSzeTrMQ9gpm0fUicNG96dskTs9MDNxK0dxg1C VrWoB2WKpzL63MBmhDarGxC60CC6JXcdVoFHM8cPmdIhnRZppSGuBYVWYvZC0QuN1VgB +GIVOhw89K9QQbh47vFXvbESQqa4FtJHE8/swEEO4wVuor3cPbwTP6Hr/+wd67GjjCG4 xmTA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.111.168 with SMTP id ij8mr12992399igb.43.1428180466988; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.58.142 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 13:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4B01B6DC-9EE3-4501-8CE1-CEBA3F19D9D3@manico.net>
References: <D141A3E5.4146E%evyncke@cisco.com> <20150401114608.GA7832@1wt.eu> <04DD393C-711F-4C9E-B21C-B184B8972DFC@apple.com> <20150401150716.GA7871@1wt.eu> <25C792A9-56D0-452D-A46C-561A44E4F229@manico.net> <20150401151634.GB7871@1wt.eu> <CABb0SYQ5=5BHSH-JQ5XsCi_bQ8h5FN=WNPvAYkzy94Bm=yTVwg@mail.gmail.com> <551E3D00.5090501@mathemainzel.info> <CABb0SYQAOXRWL5TvD5H5g_4VDwLxF=6kzhmVgCSK8Pv7pq8Apw@mail.gmail.com> <551FB3A5.503@mathemainzel.info> <CABb0SYRUvtTdZQGZkvNVTaA_yW79Q6Pd0Uh8exjE8zErzQNbsA@mail.gmail.com> <4B01B6DC-9EE3-4501-8CE1-CEBA3F19D9D3@manico.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:47:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CABb0SYSc_dW6M98FWj2ncSkZxbW0tWpkawz-1js9CGGfUTYUcA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Max Bruce <max.bruce12@gmail.com>
To: Jim Manico <jim@manico.net>
Cc: "Walter H." <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b4145346900a60512ec2df5"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=max.bruce12@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, 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: maggie.w3.org 1YeUzE-0004Vq-So 28e63da9351d80e05c52ab74df4d027a
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/CABb0SYSc_dW6M98FWj2ncSkZxbW0tWpkawz-1js9CGGfUTYUcA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29256
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>

That isn't an issue for a session that's supposed to end 5 minutes or so
after it begins.

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Jim Manico <jim@manico.net> wrote:

> In the world of auto-updating browsers and therefor auto-updating
> user-agents, tying authentication to a user agent could have unintended
> negative consequences.
>
> Tying authN to an IP address also has negative unintended consequences,
> like being on a mobile network while traveling, or being behind certain
> gateways - your IP address may change in short timespans.
>
> --
> Jim Manico
> @Manicode
> (808) 652-3805
>
> On Apr 4, 2015, at 3:18 AM, Max Bruce <max.bruce12@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The session ID is a cookie, so in the headers. And yes, because it also
> checks that cookie, which is randomly generated. It just enforces a
> user-agent server-side. It DID enforce an IP, but I removed this for other
> reasons discussed earlier.
>
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Walter H. <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>
> wrote:
>
>>  let me ask it different:  where is the Session ID, is it part of a
>> http-header, part of a html-header, a session-cookie, or is it part of the
>> URL itself that is requested?
>>
>> the second: two ident configured hosts behind NAT do not differ neither
>> in the user agent nor in the IP address; they only differ in the source
>> TCP-port ...
>>
>> On 03.04.2015 09:13, Max Bruce wrote:
>>
>>  When you say transmitting from host to server, what do you mean?
>>  And yes, if I understand what your asking. It effectively compiled a
>> random hash, and then enforced an IP & user agent. I have recently removed
>> the IP enforecement though.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Walter H. <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On 01.04.2015 21:48, Max Bruce wrote:
>>
>> What about linking to several? I wrote a session system for my Web Server
>> that will only allow access to the original Session ID if the IP &
>> User-Agent has remained unchanged, in order to protect against session
>> hijacking. I've found it's highly effective, unless you IP Spoof.
>>
>> what kind of mechanism do you use for transmitting the Session ID from
>> host to server?
>> does it prevent access from an ident configured but different host behind
>> a NAT?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>