Re: [hybi] WebSockets : Question about masqued frames !

Anthony Catel <a.catel@weelya.com> Thu, 09 June 2011 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <a.catel@weelya.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 28F3711E8148 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZhwbjOOb0Sxs for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.weelya.com (hermes.weelya.com [91.121.5.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E612811E8114 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.239] (e179073159.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.179.73.159]) by hermes.weelya.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B5C24AD99 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 18:41:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4DF0F6C5.5050807@weelya.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:37:25 +0200
From: Anthony Catel <a.catel@weelya.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hybi@ietf.org
References: <002101cc26b7$c8901c20$59b05460$@fr>
In-Reply-To: <002101cc26b7$c8901c20$59b05460$@fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090406030000090301010905"
Subject: Re: [hybi] WebSockets : Question about masqued frames !
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: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:37:31 -0000

Hi,

It's mainly because of proxy traversal (please read previous discussions 
about cache poisoning & co)

Anthony Catel

Le 09/06/2011 17:13, Jean-Christophe Bos a écrit :
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I wanted to ask you (from France!) about the latest WebSocket's drafts 
> that I also fully implemented in my own HTTP server (since hixie 76).
>
> On the masked frames, you mentioned earlier, that the mask must be 
> selected by an high entropy but it seemed illusive.
>
> However, you came back to say that just choose a random mask but 
> always in a logical of non-predictability.
>
> So, what is the real utility of this mask and that it should not be 
> predictable except to prevent a simple human readable dump of the 
> connection?
>
> Why have won so much space on the data payload length and lose 
> unnecessarily 32b for the masks contained in each frame?
>
> WebSockets is indeed a protocol over HTTP over TCP, thus ensuring a 
> good packets order and lossless.
>
> So why not simply imagine a mask whose evolutionary of the Salt was 
> fixed at the start (why not from the handshake key) and whose 
> encryption evolve based on the contents of the frames?
>
> I would be really pleased that you explain on that!
>
> Thank you very much because I truly believe that WebSockets are a 
> priority in the future of dynamic web apps :-)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> **
>
> *-*
>
> *Jean-Christophe Bos*,
>
> CEO, Tenactys Group
>
> 0 820 620 118
> 06 80 27 93 84
>
> jcb@tenactys-group.fr <mailto:jcb@tenactys-group.fr>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi