Re: [hybi] Upgrade Mechanism and HasMat (was Re: Extensibility mechanisms?)

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Thu, 22 July 2010 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fielding@gbiv.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 219F53A68A2 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.000, 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 fAcs6PO0-piD for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spaceymail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8473A6A41 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (99-21-208-82.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [99.21.208.82]) by spaceymail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B5BCA7E2; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C47FF71.3050000@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:33:57 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <18E0FF9C-6C51-4602-92E1-E44802D0D8B5@gbiv.com>
References: <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> <20100722055452.GL7174@1wt.eu> <AANLkTik_rpxo=1OfzHkwpC5soQG_NxvGuZNXx7gdhVTh@mail.gmail.com> <20100722064945.GM7174@1wt.eu> <AANLkTim7AsQGSwLE51uktj=B1vB6roZChAtDoCrE6fFG@mail.gmail.com> <4C47FF71.3050000@ericsson.com>
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Upgrade Mechanism and HasMat (was Re: 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 09:33:43 -0000

On Jul 22, 2010, at 1:21 AM, Salvatore Loreto wrote:

> I see more value to work on a general solution to secure the HTTP Upgrade mechanism 
> against cross-protocol vulnerability, instead of trying to draft something ad-hoc for WebSocket

The HTTP Upgrade mechanism is not vulnerable to cross-protocol attacks.
Other (non-HTTP) services are vulnerable to browser misdirection if
the browser can be directed to send arbitrary bytes to an arbitrary
TCP port.  That is a problem which HTTP is actually good at avoiding
because the first line is unique to HTTP.

The issues people are raising about Upgrade are in regard to passing
through intermediaries.  Some people believe that intermediaries are
evil and must be tunneled through.  Other people believe that
intermediaries are beneficial and any protocol that deliberately
subverts them will be blocked.

There is no solution that will satisfy both of those beliefs.
Please stop trying to reconcile irreconcilable belief systems.

Implement both.  One will succeed, the other will fail.
Neither choice is mature enough for standardization at the
current time.

....Roy