Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 13 January 2016 00:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196161A9148 for <>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:39:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.281
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOWeaIJ8yA_6 for <>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:39:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A2061A9142 for <>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:39:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1aJ9Ob-0007J3-KV for; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:34:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:34:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1aJ9OW-0007II-UK for; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:34:36 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1aJ9OU-0004Ag-1O for; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:34:35 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id z14so156725224igp.0 for <>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:34:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CFlmp+Ju7nFsXTmepvGahlDgEO4SOGohWIzNSsX3Bp4=; b=yEoodZwd3/3ukC9sy+h9vLMx5ZKMlUMNJtvbq+p7hQRxZEDi36762v/GlEK5+xt3E7 Wr7h/nvTW+uXUVU5zCF6xmP3Vr6kE6O2PJ7DXAiGDRUeUxh8KQvjnRNKQzayOfGO/CKi IbvJX5vyX2QPeIovHS55q3jGbtRZ0xL64PzYabdV27DuBXFEGQYnBP/4KEG6wt4PRmnI 4KKXZlFBv9D1uJ7MUONHF7RX4RDGSNeuhKGRPz7r0EuNfB66KhrFOt3utE/L2ifN4TIM NvtjWC1jN9/NLu0JQLcpoekeJrqGWdyIov4ocsDTKZd3fv+/pmFIH25REYuwrtVZv6EV XbmQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id qo8mr20318199igb.81.1452645248118; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:34:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:34:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:34:08 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5mTaW-_sM4M2jhY5u9DcdU934DI
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Mike Bishop <>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <>, Julian Reschke <>, "" <>, HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.885, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1aJ9OU-0004Ag-1O 16fd3a8e8d7ae4989af1e7415b294c1e
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/30907
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

The point with all this, in my mind and with respect to the text we
have, is whether it makes any practical difference any more whether
Eve sets this up on port 23412 or on port 1000.  My contention is that
it doesn't, these days (while it might have in the past), and that
implying that it's safe if the alt-svc is on a low-numbered port, but
not safe (or less safe) if it's on a high-numbered port isn't doing
any service to anyone.

I think we should alert people to the possible attack/issues/whatever,
but that we should not imply that any set of ports enjoy any sort of
immunity against or resistance to those attacks.


On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Mike Bishop
<> wrote:
> More whether you're okay with that text as mitigation to this hypothetical attack:
> is a shared server which hosts user home pages.  Eve places a config file in her wwwpages directory to add an Alt-Svc header to pages served out of announcing an alternative service for on port 23412.  Bob is using an Alt-Svc-capable browser.  After Bob has visited, he visits  His browser, obeying Eve's Alt-Svc header, accesses the alternative service on port 23412, where Eve is running a forward proxy that replaces all pages except her own with dancing hamsters.
> The original mitigations proposed in the text were "prohibit normal users from setting the Alt-Svc header" (which is retroactive on pre-Alt-Svc servers) or "prohibit normal users from listening for incoming requests" (which is contrary to the security model of any shared machine I've used).  This scenario originally made me want to require strong auth on any change of endpoint, but that breaks the opportunistic security draft.  The current text, which I agree does very little, was as strong as we could think of a way to make it without breaking the way Opp-Sec wanted to work.
> I haven't seen such a server since I was in college, so I don't know whether they still actually exist and run that way.  I presume they do, even if rare, but I have no data.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell []
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:32 PM
> To: Mike Bishop <>; Barry Leiba <>; Julian Reschke <>
> Cc:; HTTP Working Group <>
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10
> On 11/01/16 16:45, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> On 11/01/16 16:34, Mike Bishop wrote:
>>> Haven't heard back from Stephen on the port-change issue we wanted
>>> him to weigh in on; I sent him a reminder.
>> 2nd one worked:-)
>> Lemme go back and read the mail. Please hassle me if I've not gotten
>> back by tomorrow sometime
> So as I understand it (thanks Barry), the issue is whether or not this text is ok:
>   "Clients can reduce this risk by imposing
>    stronger requirements (e.g. strong authentication) when moving from
>    System Ports to User or Dynamic Ports, or from User Ports to Dynamic
>    Ports, as defined in Section 6 of [RFC6335]."
> FWIW, I have no problem with that. I'm not sure quite what it's telling a client to do, but I don't think there's much difference these days between lower numbered and higher numbered ports. (If that's wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me:-)
> Note that I've not read the rest of the document, just that bit.
> Cheers,
> S.
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>> [] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Sunday,
>>> January 10, 2016 9:20 AM To: Julian Reschke <>
>>> Cc:; HTTP Working Group
>>> <> Subject: Re: AD review of
>>> draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-10
>>>>>> I don't think this is a 2119 "MAY": what *else* can it do?  You
>>>>>> have no other guidance about which alternative alternative to
>>>>>> pick, so....  I think this should just say, "it chooses the most
>>>>>> suitable...."
>>>>> Agreed. I haven't changed that yet as it affects normative language
>>>>> but I will unless somebody wants to defend it soonish.
>>>> <
>>>> 9b
>> 441bfca5bbc04fff80d1>
>>> Nice.  Is this the last of the updates, or are we still working on
>>> any?  Whenever you're ready to post a new I-D version, I'll give it a
>>> check and request last call.
>>> Barry