Re: [hybi] failed TLS handshake: which close code?
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 24 October 2011 13:29 UTC
Return-Path: <lunohod.baikonur@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08CA21F8C5C for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.972
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 BzVNloWm8D1z for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E85121F8C22 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iabn5 with SMTP id n5so9092391iab.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zsYZYXPpfywVZqIEdPO5oUwpomfe4Pv1wJQ2xq1OjDs=; b=E0IZrkGMYQObfyLe4S5YqpKmbusuu+N/Kc+yvaz8jhSOAJVHsaN9gOvuju+Wxdl+/8 FwY0C9HYEz89ZXAvNbPMNhG+ePS6/IsgJcJlGyY45pO09iZ7+AVjmEz6BRC+/ESQ5owS AMWS+rzLaxTwq3pwnONXW+YqtfLHgYSPZ4Ptg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.197.197 with SMTP id el5mr40374707icb.23.1319462964420; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: lunohod.baikonur@googlemail.com
Received: by 10.42.247.199 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 06:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7ECB103B-4C75-49B2-A29B-ABCF91B3DB36@bbn.com>
References: <634914A010D0B943A035D226786325D42D0B036D6D@EXVMBX020-12.exch020.serverdata.net> <CADkeqZXXRkXCRrONLr5thwOqNVUxNWU0Q-9E0R0i=4S-bc-LFw@mail.gmail.com> <CADkeqZXDvu-JY8aZHJJPRH-_JnF196JjA_JG6X_1yrYSiAekuA@mail.gmail.com> <CADkeqZWdFrmEyJEmHy+tfgsJXS1nU3ASx20-=uwwLY6EZogc0A@mail.gmail.com> <7ECB103B-4C75-49B2-A29B-ABCF91B3DB36@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:29:24 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ajzyx5zwz85eadMJ6wTcE4Y2EG0
Message-ID: <CADkeqZWGEc6s=6UnQqzU5uGy+Jci5d7n9We+9kcHj+o8=y2SwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf303bfbde49e0f304b00b6978"
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] failed TLS handshake: which close code?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:29:26 -0000
Hi Richard, On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote: > +1 > > It's silly to require the WS implementation to send a close frame in > plaintext after the TLS connection fails. I don't even think this sort of > thing would be supported by standard TLS libraries. > Right. But the TLS-related code(s) might have to be allocated for use in the WebSocket API. > > --Richard > > > > On Oct 24, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > > On a second thought: TLS fails before WebSocket connection is > established, so (unless I am missing something) TLS related close codes will > never be sent on the wire. However reserving some WebSocket codes is still a > good idea. > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Alexey Melnikov < > alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrotetL > > That was supposed to be sent to the mailing list. The WG should consider > adding multiple codes if needed. > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> > > Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:34 PM > > Subject: Re: [hybi] failed TLS handshake: which close code? > > To: Tobias Oberstein <tobias.oberstein@tavendo.de> > > > > > > Hi Tobias, > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Tobias Oberstein < > tobias.oberstein@tavendo.de> wrote: > > Hybi-17: > > > > """ > > 4. Opening Handshake > > ... > > 4.1. Client Requirements > > ... > > 5. If /secure/ is true, the client MUST perform a TLS handshake over > > the connection after opening the connection and before sending > > the handshake data [RFC2818]. If this fails (e.g. the server's > > certificate could not be verified), then the client MUST _Fail > > the WebSocket Connection_ and abort the connection. Otherwise, > > all further communication on this channel MUST run through the > > encrypted tunnel. [RFC5246] > > """ > > > > When the client fails the TLS handshake (i.e. because of invalid server > certificate), > > which close status code would be appropriate to use for signaling that > specific > > reason to the caller? > > > > Is it supposed to use a close status code from the following range? > > > > """ > > 3000-3999 > > > > Status codes in the range 3000-3999 are reserved for use by > > libraries, frameworks and application. These status codes are > > registered directly with IANA. The interpretation of these codes > > is undefined by this protocol. > > """ > > > > Or are those only for "use on wire" not for signaling the caller? > > > > For example, Firefox currently provides the calling JavaScript with a > "1006 Abnormal Connection Close": > > > > """ > > 1006 > > > > 1006 is a reserved value and MUST NOT be set as a status code in a > > Close control frame by an endpoint. It is designated for use in > > applications expecting a status code to indicate that the > > connection was closed abnormally, e.g. without sending or > > receiving a Close control frame. > > """ > > > > However, this could be multiple things and is not giving the real reason > to the JS. > > The JS thus can't react specifically .. > > > > TLS handshake probably deserves a separate 1XXX close code. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hybi mailing list > > hybi@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi > >
- Re: [hybi] failed TLS handshake: which close code? Richard L. Barnes
- [hybi] failed TLS handshake: which close code? Tobias Oberstein
- [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close cod… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [hybi] failed TLS handshake: which close code? Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… Peter Thorson
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [hybi] failed TLS handshake: which close code? Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [hybi] failed TLS handshake: which close code? Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… Peter Thorson
- Re: [hybi] failed TLS handshake: which close code? Tobias Oberstein
- Re: [hybi] failed TLS handshake: which close code? Tobias Oberstein
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… Tobias Oberstein
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… Tobias Oberstein
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… Tobias Oberstein
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… John Tamplin
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [hybi] Fwd: failed TLS handshake: which close… Gabriel Montenegro