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 08CE91A87A5 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 QGQXQ3W-bPBu 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 524491A8750 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 1YeV08-0007tg-0d for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:49:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:49:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YeV08-0007tg-0d@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <max.bruce12@gmail.com>) id 1YeV04-0007sz-NI for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:49:04 +0000
Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <max.bruce12@gmail.com>) id 1YeV03-00062R-Kh for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:49:04 +0000
Received: by igcau2 with SMTP id au2so981630igc.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:48:37 -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=U2popMuJquL8yqPfxAvjplzXqp6iSuW21modmONvfXE=; b=cKov82DlaHf4TeMiPwxRQvMTN2pNAUJrrvDxdiMbC/cD0xAORi/g6uz+E7CuRIQXBc njCoORIul/UlRh2VNJN6PagDihmginO02o5FDEokwapN8WuMxuE0InEYgec9J/ivApCv YvvaqpmlILEb9jQYQ6XS/hgg4adXQjujNsYLwjHJSwShGFxLHe2amDHFeVZuNlNjgI2W 29dKrDuxBMVBiKIl/FFpXEWqEIt4WX6YQD6oYD9rjuNgo2rQSG0ot22pOPxm849bcXAG UI++/22CRGd0gTejZKd01KkfhKuWGlGhOJqUbp4b68CMidAfXL0MrdeMk1WbDVYAgYqz hKpQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.27.143 with SMTP id b137mr12222708iob.76.1428180517474; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.58.142 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 13:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55200E11.4040703@mathemainzel.info>
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> <55200E11.4040703@mathemainzel.info>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:48:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABb0SYQP45K+U7u6wHGqsLP4Vt4DKat_Fpfrc7K_dbBCye1Vaw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Max Bruce <max.bruce12@gmail.com>
To: "Walter H." <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140a87c6b58800512ec30d0"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.213.174; envelope-from=max.bruce12@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f174.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: lisa.w3.org 1YeV03-00062R-Kh 430b7519d1c9609d0f469f646067f6c4
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/CABb0SYQP45K+U7u6wHGqsLP4Vt4DKat_Fpfrc7K_dbBCye1Vaw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29257
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>
Yes, I would think it wouldn't be very robust if socket closing ruined your sessions. On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Walter H. <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info> wrote: > I see, in case the tcp-connection is lost/closed, does this also mean > the https session is closed? > or in other words: it is no problem, closing a socket and opening another; > is this true during a http and/or https-session? > > On 04.04.2015 12:18, Max Bruce 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? > > > > > >
- Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very bad i… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Willy Tarreau
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Willy Tarreau
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Michael Sweet
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Willy Tarreau
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Jim Manico
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Willy Tarreau
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Max Bruce
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Willy Tarreau
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Max Bruce
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Willy Tarreau
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Michael Sweet
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Michael Sweet
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Jim Manico
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Michael Sweet
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Zhong Yu
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Martin Thomson
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Zhong Yu
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Zhong Yu
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Martin Thomson
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Zhong Yu
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Michael Sweet
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Jim Manico
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Jim Manico
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Walter H.
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Willy Tarreau
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Walter H.
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Willy Tarreau
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Walter H.
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Max Bruce
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Walter H.
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Max Bruce
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Jim Manico
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Walter H.
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Walter H.
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Jim Manico
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Max Bruce
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Max Bruce
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Jim Manico
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very b… Walter H.