IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Why not just use ssh?

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Tue, 31 August 2010 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.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 CC4213A69DA for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.113
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 F7I27RO+wcRy for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F006C3A6849 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so6347972vws.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.88.138 with SMTP id a10mr3673558vcm.236.1283289570367; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i23sm3087064vcr.34.2010.08.31.14.19.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk20 with SMTP id 20so3294148gxk.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.226.11 with SMTP id y11mr3256726ybg.419.1283289568294; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.187.218 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin8CiHFoOSFdcRPern5YY-FdODC4GST+BrP3t_j@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d48398080b610405d982ffd924f58e27.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> <AANLkTin8CiHFoOSFdcRPern5YY-FdODC4GST+BrP3t_j@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:18:58 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=fn2JE7a0b_0KFFLwq3eG_-xnaRazXAMPGi0N3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Why not just use ssh?
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: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:19:01 -0000

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> Adam: I'm not entirely clear on your point. I agree that if the HTTP version
> is more vulnerable to cross-protocol attacks than attackers will exploit it,
> but if the HTTP and HTTPS versions are equally vulnerable, why would
> attackers favor HTTP? What am I missing.

I'm fairly convinced that the TLS version is free of cross-protocol
vulnerabilities.  However, the same cannot be said for the non-TLS
version.  The security argument for the non-TLS version is pretty
dodgy, IMHO.  So, I don't think the two are equally vulnerable.

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email