IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> Wed, 06 October 2010 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ferg@caucho.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 3D4033A70C2 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 rnRqLAqqlI-J for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from n12.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (n12.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.125.209]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C7D933A70BE for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [68.142.200.227] by n12.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Oct 2010 01:08:15 -0000
Received: from [68.142.201.252] by t8.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Oct 2010 01:08:15 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp413.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Oct 2010 01:08:15 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 894976.99115.bm@omp413.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 11290 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2010 01:08:15 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (ferg@66.92.8.203 with plain) by smtp113.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 05 Oct 2010 18:08:15 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: L1_TBRiswBB5.MuzAo8Yf89wczFo0A2C
X-YMail-OSG: jq07EvwVM1mgeqgQ8p9SDFEVRAolPkDXjccOxrM0E_SYnWp ESpWqnS6NcCQ_qNgCyWPjLGEtxpTblRbTPUiPxeMCHL2SD9MmQby00TQZm7w n0Lh5cMLc0ChDsv5vra_lI9asfYO.DfSgUOxRDAgbESLaUGCG6nMbeUELrQG GLt1CSpx2kdvUAXfiHiUqFs2t.Pl1aLMSlkzzatF7LByGO2mLbhKrZ9eBJCl I1jaVpEKxO3VGqMRTVtHTy5P_aFCUQuyifkxGXoaq4AE1SMHeYoS2wk2IoJG L9alSYOD2mlWZh9Y1mQYxnBT.z7QG4NbOfE7W_tP5_1y0a.T5a5NS90iM
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <4CABCBFA.6020100@caucho.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:08:10 -0700
From: Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
References: <AANLkTikszM0pVE-0dpZ2kv=i=y5yzS2ekeyZxtz9N=fQ@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> <AANLkTi=wKFnNOuM+U3fktAFRn3R5OZ7c6PR2W3EAy7tm@mail.gmail.com> <4CA53E6B.1040808@caucho.com> <AANLkTikOyvF5AHTf4sDD=rWmK2FTD6R6LaHa4KTqkbcm@mail.gmail.com> <4CA68098.8010404@caucho.com> <AANLkTinYhW9MnnM3tkbCWziePyM7mFUEteKhw5OGp-eS@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=_ejOCNiM49VW5q05=H7-M0jzAvXvGaKM1b7mX@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimyJj+Jxz1Q6fLrQ8iosGkD+0shUh3=td+jX_Do@mail.gmail.com> <4CA772A1.2090808@caucho.com> <AANLkTi=nLixtxMEd4B58Zp5FRbquNX2C_=7gCf9BGGQs@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=nLixtxMEd4B58Zp5FRbquNX2C_=7gCf9BGGQs@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 01:07:20 -0000

Adam Barth wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> wrote:
>   
>> Your DNS example did not weaken requirement #1, because it didn't identify a
>> server or proxy that could calculate the hash. Your "relay back" either used
>> the browser itself as a websocket proxy or it meant time travel.
>>     
>
> I'm not sure you understood the DNS example correctly.  The forged DNS
> request is for foo.attacker.com, which means the nonce is sent to the
> attacker's DNS server.  The attacker's DNS server can easily compute
> the HMAC and send it back in a DNS response.  The HMAC will then get
> relayed through the DNS and returned to the browser.
>   

If you assume the hijacker has control of a DNS server to act as a 
proxy, you may as well assume he has control of an actual WebSocket 
server to act as a proxy.

-- Scott

> Adam
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email