Re: [hybi] A WebSocket handshake

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 06 October 2010 06:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 59D1B3A70ED for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.693
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 mNi-7837cv2M for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804123A70EB for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk31 with SMTP id 31so42116qyk.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.203.200 with SMTP id fj8mr4228700qab.85.1286347219393; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.28.18 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20101006053400.GC20095@1wt.eu>
References: <AANLkTimQ5x-v+Mz_OHrNDdtVd94E+HOBWwo3_f1ktEeg@mail.gmail.com> <20101006053400.GC20095@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:40:19 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikFYP-LVS+dFZqd+v+M46KizAAq1mDH+t6Lcmau@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3010ed9911dbc50491ed0d91"
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] A WebSocket handshake
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 06:39:21 -0000

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote
>
> What I like with a payload-only encryption vs a connection encryption
> is that it still maintains the ability to install dedicated filtering
> components in schools. Such components will technically work as transparent
> proxies and will just be MITM. They will have two encrypted channels,
> one with the browser and one with the server and they'll be able to
> see the exchanged data in clear text and be able to filter based on
> that.
>

I don't believe there is an issue here. This isn't a DH exchange--the keys
are in the
clear. A filtering appliance can passively decrypt the traffic.

-Ekr