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

Max Bruce <max.bruce12@gmail.com> Sat, 04 April 2015 10:22 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 E745A1A6EDE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 03:22:22 -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 R_hpzopUOSJO for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 03:22:21 -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 2E8891A3B9D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 03:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YeLAR-0003KS-SA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:19:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:19:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YeLAR-0003KS-SA@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 1YeLAO-0003Jl-BM for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:19:04 +0000
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <max.bruce12@gmail.com>) id 1YeLAN-0003ZO-Hq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:19:04 +0000
Received: by ierf6 with SMTP id f6so104507141ier.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 03:18:38 -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=Hlj9ofYG09etZcP0PPAzoz2m+XAC6T0TwUZ3P7ZpnAI=; b=DJEvHtJ++vwGj8IhLX1KOdsSdwJtMatR1Zqssk8IptQxfsPADPL0G/flN3fLPtExuJ RF2CRgCVtB809k7cFe4ps8UIp+MAMWu3FNSoXmlxkR35QO8pdeNY26OUknnBemECluZ8 P8sVOhyuaJ10p5Pb3kpyhFuQdtY40RVixCmWKbItT5BjFC97ypoxaRAj+cXe77EnWLVR AMO/pM28KO+Fk0Lr76aHgq7ImjLAxFpeI1nWDg8AQaVGUOXxbXoeoEzWaj2kgKfnY2sI rtTE69SyUQPCZFJ4zBFxXuOcqZovCq7fFq2kDCWuSKEI2mBI6yshfnsFVjdUrZzkO0He LBjA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.97.41 with SMTP id dx9mr33371379igb.1.1428142717897; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 03:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.58.142 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 03:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <551FB3A5.503@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>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 03:18:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABb0SYRUvtTdZQGZkvNVTaA_yW79Q6Pd0Uh8exjE8zErzQNbsA@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="047d7b10cd536393bd0512e363c3"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.182; envelope-from=max.bruce12@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f182.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 1YeLAN-0003ZO-Hq 9265eb7a5debcc2f59674720d667de00
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/CABb0SYRUvtTdZQGZkvNVTaA_yW79Q6Pd0Uh8exjE8zErzQNbsA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29250
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>

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?
>
>
>
>