IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> Sat, 11 December 2010 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B035A28C144 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:56:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.073
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ty-CZ9feg+Kg for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:56:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ey0-f171.google.com (mail-ey0-f171.google.com [209.85.215.171]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9E4528C118 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:56:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eyg5 with SMTP id 5so3371374eyg.16 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:58:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jMIhwqwkAGANRN6qBoRhr6zbt3/LAPIlmv9IdMJJQp0=; b=GGS6eHHc8W0vlxdYYqTxvrF7GCjd3u/5lmAXyDcOkDJ+C2Mq83X9KWluVdOWFFs3FT hsrFDuYsdIlPi3PhzPUgPlXsRAC2xogGkiBiPYaYAjdZaltdba7ZQQYjkAhm81IGaMBt /ucq7WNg4I3usZ6FZHc9BiPXlbfEHtPKpxa54=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=RvREXrCZNb3tBszmfo0UFAiONxs3BkMV9LO9AHLYpg0iYtHgv1Q74s5Aedxtx4wU5p o5NjWxl4JVarbTooLFj6e//Smya7uDJnoLqAd1YJi0QspPWjTIaK6KmTsG5sv8weuadg 4L64WbkxB8sDAopT/50I0vj1GXh8QfEBWbtLI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.213.22.207 with SMTP id o15mr1646657ebb.75.1292029100403; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.213.23.20 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:58:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=eQc-skps5QdoyMvz0_G53NapK-QK5JG9p+8He@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BB947F6D-15AA-455D-B830-5E12C80C1ACD@mnot.net> <81870DB1-B177-4253-8233-52C4168BE99D@apple.com> <F4D1B715-3606-4E9A-BFB2-8B7BC11BE331@mnot.net> <57D4B885-B1D8-482F-8747-6460C0FFF166@apple.com> <37A00E8D-B55C-49AD-A85C-A299C80FFF17@mnot.net> <4F2580A7-79C2-4B0A-BCE5-7FB6D9AA0ED7@apple.com> <BB31C4AB95A70042A256109D461991260583956C@XCH117CNC.rim.net> <EA41A6C7-971C-4EC8-AA6F-96363B7FDC4C@gmail.com> <73E53F19-E0E7-4ADB-B765-ABAF0B4A6736@mnot.net> <r2f0g6d7bj770kg0db5ptr027ninmckns8@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <20C2FBB9-901F-4235-AF23-EC8262585905@mnot.net> <1291905941.2315.2113.camel@ds9.ducksong.com> <4D011146.3080906@caucho.com> <AANLkTi=CKU8H5A2f7rSGZ9h5mrp=NZW0yLB9O6=MDW5i@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimg774w-JVExm4YQJzuBv3gaJZOLMo5OymDsMiE@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik5ce7VkZrYW=Yp9ST0T1hmAfXYWXqoqfgtsdPh@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=ofWZxKT=7DYUSArQTqsePZECOix5fkySGjZAt@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=eQc-skps5QdoyMvz0_G53NapK-QK5JG9p+8He@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:58:20 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTinV3rWP7iw+-aZmk=p+R_PL1pZGZ8obtRm2ro5n@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:56:49 -0000

I take back my criticisms at httponly cookies, they are incorrect.

Suppose httponly=true is the norm, and cookies are not accessible to
script by default. If for some reason sessionid cookie needs to be
exposed to script, is that a big no no? I don't think we should
exaggerate the risk. httponly is only relevant in the catastrophic
event of script injection and even then it's just a very small
deterrent. It's like saying "bring the cocktail umbrella in case it's
raining". I view it as a placebo.

However given the reality that people really like it, right or wrong,
and we cannot take it way from people, I give up the opposition that
WS shouldn't send httponly cookies.

- Zhong Yu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email