IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Handshake was: The WebSocket protocol issues.

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Thu, 30 September 2010 17:03 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 EB6763A6DEE for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, 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 Tnc61LWZ0EeA for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48D43A6CA0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so1963981bwz.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.39.203 with SMTP id h11mr3087307bke.8.1285866239321; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x19sm71853bkv.21.2010.09.30.10.03.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvg7 with SMTP id 7so731860pvg.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.155.6 with SMTP id c6mr3326863wfe.150.1285866234856; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.149.20 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4CA4BE10.1010709@caucho.com>
References: <AANLkTikszM0pVE-0dpZ2kv=i=y5yzS2ekeyZxtz9N=fQ@mail.gmail.com> <62B5CCE3-79AF-4F60-B3A0-5937C9D291D7@apple.com> <AANLkTikKc+4q_Q1+9uDo=ZpFF6S49i6vj2agZOGWVqKm@mail.gmail.com> <E2D38FF3-F1B9-4305-A7FC-A9690D2AEB4A@apple.com> <AANLkTikRYB_suPmSdH3uzGmdynozECRszDx+BpUvtZ4h@mail.gmail.com> <5CBF797D-A58E-4129-96B3-164F6E7409B9@apple.com> <4CA0D0D2.4040006@caucho.com> <AANLkTinACqm-GxUPhvFMf6_sGfeJofwy1r=28o=vgM43@mail.gmail.com> <4CA12810.8020006@caucho.com> <AANLkTimrMfXrnVMjU3f57L_sO7usyYQ56rBM4aMb2Pfr@mail.gmail.com> <20100928052501.GD12373@1wt.eu> <CA8029B0-71A3-44ED-88C6-934FE833BBA2@apple.com> <AANLkTim+fXj-h6OS3OdcfVfh3Q1UwxD8NLVawb=AWHX+@mail.gmail.com> <4FAC5C93-9BDF-4752-AFBC-162D718397AB@apple.com> <AANLkTikcH1W3bQwumqHbe-Yqa3XdoJqCa2b-mZuvoQ7g@mail.gmail.com> <9746E847-DC8B-45A7-ADF3-2ADB9DA7F82E@apple.com> <AANLkTik9igUwoxVrktoBoZrPoUW=Tjh7HyVbGJgQYes-@mail.gmail.com> <9F595226-FA0A-4C38-A6D0-0F4214BD7D21@apple.com> <4CA4BE10.1010709@caucho.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:03:24 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=wKFnNOuM+U3fktAFRn3R5OZ7c6PR2W3EAy7tm@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Handshake was: The WebSocket protocol issues.
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: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:03:15 -0000

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 3:28 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>>> On 29 September 2010 18:56, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>>> I suspect -76 is not strong enough, but it is slightly stronger in some
>>>> specific ways. First, by spreading the data across multiple header
>>>> fields
>>>> and incorporating whitespace, it makes it slightly trickier to do
>>>> injection
>>>> attacks.
>>>
>>> Why is hex encoding simpler to inject than the space/char injected
>>> decimal encoding?
>>
>> Because you can't inject whitespace into the resource name in the request
>> line.
>
> Maciej, you're missing the entire point of the hash.  The main purpose of a
> hash/digest is to detect modification or replacement of a message as in an
> injection attack. That's what a digest does.

If that's the purpose of the hash, which elements of the protocol
defend against cross-protocol attacks?

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email