p1: additional security considerations

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 23 April 2013 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697C321F93A6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5+P3LhV23Dst for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0A821F9389 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUWJd-0002NU-Rf for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:02:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:02:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUWJd-0002NU-Rf@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UUWJS-0002JJ-Lz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:02:46 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UUWJR-0005Tx-Tq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:02:46 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94044509B6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:02:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <43ED2599-CE89-4C0C-8EEF-E3A6200E8662@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:02:22 +1000
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.363, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UUWJR-0005Tx-Tq d792611f589f19ac70ad1b1d47aedfb9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: p1: additional security considerations
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/43ED2599-CE89-4C0C-8EEF-E3A6200E8662@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17481
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>

Just wondering if we need to explicitly point out the security considerations around the following:

* Message routing -- it's somewhat common AIUI for intermediaries to only route on the Host header, for performance reasons; i.e., they do not reconstruct the effective request URI (as required by p1 5.5). I know there's a theoretical risk here, but is there a real-world risk that we should point out?

* Message delimitation - the consequences for getting message delimitation wrong (whether it's regarding multiple content-length headers, processing 1xx responses correctly, etc.) are now well-understood. Should we point it out explicitly in SC?


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/