IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Thu, 22 July 2010 20:53 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 D65FF3A685F for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, 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 yJ5PvZzsjaRu for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93E13A67A1 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwe5 with SMTP id 5so3478289qwe.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.54.13 with SMTP id o13mr807749qag.228.1279832041051; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q31sm30857899qcq.44.2010.07.22.13.54.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyg8 with SMTP id 8so1120190gyg.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.177.9 with SMTP id e9mr2830523anp.195.1279832039834; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.143.145 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C48AF24.2040501@caucho.com>
References: <h2w5c902b9e1004152345j992b815bz5f8d38f06a19181a@mail.gmail.com> <4BCC0A07.9030003@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190753510.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC111C.90707@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190837570.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC204D.30004@gmx.de> <z2gad99d8ce1004190822ne4dd36b6v54d63efcc448e840@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007202204270.7242@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <AANLkTikkfdlUxQ0MGNvVQKa5gfovkGHWdCgyN9juKSQJ@mail.gmail.com> <4C462F9E.9030207@caucho.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007212153110.7242@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <AANLkTiku76oSucTNDFdwgsFBNFa_cCpC-YktTnMfX47-@mail.gmail.com> <4C479130.4020500@caucho.com> <AANLkTikLDjBP-Xs5t6TxmJuq4nG8jwThQ=n34B4cEmup@mail.gmail.com> <4C479CE4.6070805@caucho.com> <AANLkTims1er0Rbv0ysP4gRs1Kd0He8hapHeJ3nON=JQa@mail.gmail.com> <4C47C5B0.3030006@caucho.com> <AANLkTi=ND-FOH8OoD=TCbiyeSZ-h0LhxQBXN5w-2hfvj@mail.gmail.com> <4C48A468.3040009@caucho.com> <AANLkTikeLr325F03bowJu7NeHEqY_+OzEnQcrxHbCwhW@mail.gmail.com> <4C48AF24.2040501@caucho.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:53:39 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinodV_uPvJLxSG_uyg9pjeCjC=iDOxP0SinGxtN@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] Extensibility mechanisms?
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, 22 Jul 2010 20:53:44 -0000

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> wrote:
> Adam Barth wrote:
>> We need to know the server understands web sockets before spamming
>> them with attacker-controlled bytes.  If we don't, we'll repeat the
>> long and tragic history of cross-protocol vulnerabilities caused by
>> HTTP POST.
>>
>> This is a hard requirement.
>
> Then I think it should be added to the requirements document, because that's
> a fundamental design decision.

   REQ. 19:  WebSocket should be designed to be robust against cross-
      protocol attacks.  The protocol design should consider and
      mitigate the risk presented by WebSocket clients to existing
      servers (including HTTP servers).  It should also consider and
      mitigate the risk to WebSocket servers presented by clients for
      other protocols (including HTTP).

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email