IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.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 9EF673A6CC5 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:51:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_PORT=0.001]
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 pBMDecqgkEtn for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BCE3A6C8A for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.83]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oB1Iqa64007557 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:52:37 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1291229557; bh=AvF4iZ6IRabWqx9vCqibSYXC7zU=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=s1HWqDo1H8wl8yB1edhZ4FXm35J1lsCOI7fDuDvOCd6wpeYJO99QbiMEN0Y7Uzuqh Yob/9SO2+7zHY3JkHOJ5A==
Received: from gxk8 (gxk8.prod.google.com [10.202.11.8]) by kpbe19.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oB1Iq4kh014132 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:52:36 -0800
Received: by gxk8 with SMTP id 8so3643576gxk.16 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:52:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C4oZ8ljFy5nIqh1qSVb47Vm5mvGjRAdqarpV5bvQhFw=; b=GgYOeCdhTppMep3SyuwwZcByn2DDyEKzxi3mQDr2LICzGn0/JzuUOABrAWzOQokfU2 2b/qi9JB0cfNFmD6TtZw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Pc/Vnja0TC7mu+QkQiDZ5G/Aw3/Upbz7064GN5yHkPeycHveb+90naxdnDU1C2rHRf 1i/jhC/DAC4ID5HRxOaA==
Received: by 10.151.27.5 with SMTP id e5mr7104195ybj.206.1291229555264; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:52:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.217.12 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:52:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim9jj0pZzNjrJ+rTXd6ZYnp284ugcKXALcj-Wt6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin6=8_Bhn2YseoSHGh1OSkQzsYrTW=fMiPvYps1@mail.gmail.com> <20101126000352.ad396b9a.eric@bisonsystems.net> <AANLkTimzQyG4hugOvHqoNrBrZFA4fGbGXQ7MZ2i+68dO@mail.gmail.com> <4CF615B2.9010304@rowe-clan.net> <F96E5CE9-CA7D-4B70-8260-F05456D021FB@gbiv.com> <AANLkTimi5HL56PD9gLHUWs=mcbV3Eaz=GOsK38sxPevb@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimydOwRiVkrZn0zmxmvWP_V6yAmNbipOF73NBWD@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin_k_s7yOSP1QUXyy66p=gweeepySFG+C=kGYJ+@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim9jj0pZzNjrJ+rTXd6ZYnp284ugcKXALcj-Wt6@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:52:14 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinb4pDS25HJwnM36NK9ajyEt8MztWriR5ECEgZR@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade
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, 01 Dec 2010 18:51:24 -0000

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:
> If 6543 is the websocket port, then it would not matter in an
> intermediary intercepted and interpreted
>
>  CONNECT some.host.com:6543 HTTP/1.1
>
> as the implementation of that is likely to be exactly the semantics
> that we want.
>
>
> An intermediary that incepts and interpets
>
>  CONNECT some.special.token HTTP/1.1
>
> is going to break.

Breaking in a way that doesn't expose a vulnerability is fine (but
obviously we would prefer to avoid it), as those will eventually be
upgraded to be WebSocket-aware -- what we definitely can't afford is
an intermediary that breaks in such a way as to expose
vulnerabilities, which is what Adam's work on GET+Upgrade appears to
show.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email