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

Alexander Voronin <alexander.voronin@gmail.com> Fri, 24 September 2010 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.voronin@gmail.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 CCE0F3A6A3F for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.416, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
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 8iqY3Qu2Jjka for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB9A3A69F6 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk20 with SMTP id 20so1267528gxk.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3eks6KJjkaw2kMMyUzhrNijyfdjP8+h7iI9ZP4wzECM=; b=B4v/hcHxBI/C+BE+h1PZEABbFZS/gRuO9UBgnqqmmto/5QeUKHVKd9EQGG9sx5Wi53 lzVADGLx/7yFfujdIj15U575en+26V8D2iKqBFoTIZ3atI4O6ZdJdJcTBb1Jf85vrV0F /bZ/PdEbRfty+c8efn1TqPdlWRtoH4OXWDJTo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=aQP9dXbPQWgQ8Ldljcqvb4j63GXV4mx8hBM72q82rt0UXKI1vvij3g4skavUabuiLr I5gwylCOqCunAUXGpq9MNERQ0y7RIxsrwkScg4hCGV7SrlfWtRhMRZsiqDbMZzmcQFZ3 PdzShglv32jjBlyzl19CeJ/bQZWEO9EcpZ/1I=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.50.33 with SMTP id x33mr4246767anx.79.1285348883660; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.152.85 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20100924153122.GC28314@1wt.eu>
References: <AANLkTikszM0pVE-0dpZ2kv=i=y5yzS2ekeyZxtz9N=fQ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikczXMx9XSY4jGaVwh5LndRTTLg==+LPj=JmiGk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=_TYM1vZrZYBoSu+8j9WrSXfaZ42EMRmnF3rnz@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=gqCD=ymNawDYnpRommm2CesrBFqC-eDCpuFvG@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikKgvO28yKrE3X7FrAnssFFkrogwWbYo6pJEsJC@mail.gmail.com> <20100924145816.GB28314@1wt.eu> <AANLkTimYMc+YvUd0bBmWtdSTC0S5Gm34cSE0c26e5RMg@mail.gmail.com> <20100924153122.GC28314@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:21:23 +0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTimNBzhqgpDjeeMXgxyX22LupasMrubBW9qo3iG=@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexander Voronin <alexander.voronin@gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6469d409f81200491049b1f"
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: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:20:52 -0000

Here we'r talking not about handshake but about cross-protocol attacks. So
websockets as two-stage process is invulnerable to this attack. If browser
creates and openes websocket than we sure that data will be sent into HTTP
stream. If handshake fails no data will be sent. So what kind of
cross-protocol attacks we'r still trying to avoid? Referenced document with
POST example has nothing in common with our issue.

In reference to handshake - as noticed sending data in GET request is a bad
idea. And I still believe that old style handshake will work for any kind of
proxy chains using just HTTP result codes.

2010/9/24 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

>
>
> We all agree about that, but as several people have indicated, this minimal
> handshake requires two round trips because it still does not validate the
> fact that the whole chain can exchange data in both directions. That's why
> there are thoughts about improving from that point.
>
> Regards,
> Willy
>
>


-- 
когда я опустился на самое дно, снизу мне постучали..