IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Authentication over HTTP

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Mon, 15 July 2013 00:04 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 9CE3621F9BF2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 xaTE3NnCat6d for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6103321F9CA9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UyWFy-00039z-G9 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:03:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:03:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UyWFy-00039z-G9@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1UyWFp-00039B-JY for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:03:01 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1UyWFo-0007QF-Tr for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:03:01 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id B788A3EB41; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:02:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r6F02dl6019434; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:02:39 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: M Stefan <mstefanro@gmail.com>
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In-reply-to: <51E330F5.6050100@gmail.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <51E330F5.6050100@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:02:39 +0000
Message-ID: <19433.1373846559@critter.freebsd.dk>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@phk.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.215, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.39
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UyWFo-0007QF-Tr 18acf213bd0ffb1873614740813c8d26
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Authentication over HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/19433.1373846559@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18774
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>

In message <51E330F5.6050100@gmail.com>, M Stefan writes:

>Nowadays, the only serious way of providing secure communications over
>HTTP is using HTTPS. Many web hosts are reluctant to using it because
>of the extra computational burden [...]

I agree with you (if I understood your message right) that the
current HTTP/1.1 authentication/password stuff is fundamentally
useless and should not be carried into HTTP/2.0.

I think HTTP/2.0 should make partial protection possible, (See my
previous message :-) exactly so that the cost can be kept down.

But I think that it would be a big mistake to involved HTTP/2.0 in
the actual protection, to any extent further than to mark what needs
protection and what does not.

Authentication should happen either in the encrypting transport
which moves HTTP/2.0 across (as in certificates and assymetric crypto)
or in the application transported inside HTTP/2.0 (as in most web-site
login dialogs), but HTTP/2.0 itself should not get involved:  It
is the wrong layer.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email