Re: Linking a cookie to an IP address is a very bad in 2015...
Jim Manico <jim@manico.net> Wed, 01 April 2015 15:19 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 7B9601ACD86 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 4uA2mcupPFzY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:19:36 -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 C05771ACD80 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YdKLn-0004hN-HP for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:14:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:14:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YdKLn-0004hN-HP@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <jim@manico.net>) id 1YdKLl-0004gX-7t for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:14:37 +0000
Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jim@manico.net>) id 1YdKLk-0004Kg-B7 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:14:37 +0000
Received: by pdrw1 with SMTP id w1so49670869pdr.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=ZaAY7+W6k71u6o4bg82Dr7wreX/0UdRfAifYoWaDLzs=; b=h61Cl0XGBB+SkuZvqniXBRZsQS3TIkCRi5R+iTQhAYXjPTnlK1dIlP6/Ehy4irP371 Xcp6hyVciF82mMUkyAvD+Kz6Hm6JeCjgkKYTB0ixMYAJYP80rFnse1qCqr8C+pHVuAVu YkJ6BHedUuOBU2KHCWBRRHVjnBhem//XnLW18Cze/0usH1Urx/sW3RNkiaQLKshcRsNs 1lbsIq5v8hcoZUgpE14gKgeC/XA5mmf79F6k3QjIbURBA+FuE4iMB8dGd4Jij4H6E7I4 belDPhxIKGRIzY9mDDGb54YeEm/BdV2CihqEyGuSAYbixQNLpVuQYKAC6dSERR5qiYDk gxmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmt+EPg5QAsSWd+JpWXaCyFio+hInkmc/IhMTPctpLWvRWVsW8BZCz9QYThQSlOWbcVKumi
X-Received: by 10.66.140.39 with SMTP id rd7mr77550801pab.25.1427901249970; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 08:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.142.130.149] ([166.177.251.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r5sm2435774pdr.82.2015.04.01.08.14.07 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Apr 2015 08:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jim Manico <jim@manico.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12D508)
In-Reply-To: <20150401150716.GA7871@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 08:14:06 -0700
Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <25C792A9-56D0-452D-A46C-561A44E4F229@manico.net>
References: <D141A3E5.4146E%evyncke@cisco.com> <20150401114608.GA7832@1wt.eu> <04DD393C-711F-4C9E-B21C-B184B8972DFC@apple.com> <20150401150716.GA7871@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.192.178; envelope-from=jim@manico.net; helo=mail-pd0-f178.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YdKLk-0004Kg-B7 6d1d76aa6c56627f3de47402916365a4
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/25C792A9-56D0-452D-A46C-561A44E4F229@manico.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29182
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>
I think using the IP address for these purposes is fantastic - in intranet environments where IP per user is static. :) -- Jim Manico @Manicode (808) 652-3805 > On Apr 1, 2015, at 8:07 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 10:52:32AM -0400, Michael Sweet wrote: >> Um, no. IP addresses, by themselves, have never been useful as unique client >> identifiers. NAT, DHCP, proxies, roaming, etc. all contribute to their >> instability. > > OK for this indeed. > >> Typically the client address will be incorporated into the session cookie >> value which contains a hash of a timestamp, client address, client-supplied >> headers (like User-Agent), server-supplied nonce value, and user ID and >> password (for sites with user accounts). > > Taking the user-agent would probably be more reliable than the IP address. > >> The main reason for incorporating client values into the session cookie hash >> is to (imperfectly) tie the cookie to the identity of the client (vs. the >> user) and (imperfectly) protect against replay attacks, particularly for HTTP >> connections. >> >> From an operational standpoint, I've used this method on dozens of web sites >> over the years and maybe had 10 reports of problems due to NAT/proxies, over >> millions of visitors. There may be some "selection bias" in that number (all >> of my web sites have been tech-oriented) but I don't think this is something >> that affects a large number of users given its continued, widespread use. > > Well, I've been used to see in average about 5% of users whose IP address will > change during a session on some large web sites. This is fairly common for > sites that people access from their work, and it's getting more common with > smartphones automatically picking a wifi access when they find one, which > is able to change after a few seconds/minutes of idle. > >> (Note: I'm not claiming that this practice is perfect or that we shouldn't >> try to come up with something better...) > > Anyway when cookies are stolen, the attacker is inside the browser. In banking > environments, the fraudulent operations are performed entirely from within the > browser so this sort of protection is totally useless since the cookie doesn't > need to be reused outside of this browser. > > Regards, > Willy > >
- 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.