IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-13.txt

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Thu, 08 September 2011 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.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 A54F621F8AF4 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DmUPLTyD5yXS for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0654921F8AF1 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.13]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p88Hk3Gq003487 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:46:04 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1315503964; bh=XMbI06jzb0RlyalVcAGJE4ewHBs=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=qs7KDvEm19EmZN+8adFNqIgh+iKaY6wnC9dxaCEw+n8HUpTXk2jmaH6bjOizcRfyt iflax7TNpzMTURlQ3yPqA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=kXJwPd5oJgE+pQJMoNB1OyZzVoZR4VkoOUO6QF+V1P29RjlFWp7ZizGk8nGbNiBCK Ro+8OrhsNqxd1UYK4AwPg==
Received: from gyf2 (gyf2.prod.google.com [10.243.50.66]) by hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p88HiEXf021083 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:46:02 -0700
Received: by gyf2 with SMTP id 2so1041650gyf.13 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=kJ1UCxNNJ8wcJiTZXSw01NGya9tGVzBaRnSI4axUBWE=; b=Yeznv/4Heks0Fdt6zy0ei5r077elEep9QXvhHik8cFISqUMiZ38QS2ConQ/HDu4xDG G3qgv3kVMOt7QFYOOXDA==
Received: by 10.150.94.10 with SMTP id r10mr1182840ybb.287.1315503960277; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.94.10 with SMTP id r10mr1182832ybb.287.1315503960121; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.49.7 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4653ABAE-3A73-4FBD-A42E-A9A917C1A2D1@bbn.com>
References: <20110831184207.1514.64093.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0fc901cc6878$1681eec0$0a00a8c0@Venus> <CAH9hSJb2rH+fX0AnekYxsEkHKzb15aHrg_hDQw1baWLiWBF-3w@mail.gmail.com> <17b501cc6d31$3016d6d0$0a00a8c0@Venus> <CAH9hSJYhLpcXrOtS-nzLt2YW9QbngEsfdcNF+0TadyVA6rrK1A@mail.gmail.com> <17ef01cc6d39$3575ae50$0a00a8c0@Venus> <20110907085128.GA19144@1wt.eu> <CAH9hSJYXZ285L_+eJh6VUVCAg4D+u=vQbcjVOA4RMsJSbcHqiw@mail.gmail.com> <CABLsOLBKgnTFga821t2AZ1dXobTsfMb5v8CTJhm_Nr8WMkonaA@mail.gmail.com> <53451FDB-77F7-42A1-8D16-05094C35AB5D@bbn.com> <4E68E9F6.6030901@stpeter.im> <CABLsOLBkBjoFenUZ3SVseaZ6Lt-QE=xw6L1caCQ-8nfN+qky2A@mail.gmail.com> <4653ABAE-3A73-4FBD-A42E-A9A917C1A2D1@bbn.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:45:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CABLsOLCGCFA7rLUUFaUbMae9Zh0drx7tuzaWc1J6xQQNEx2a+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd6acd03e600d04ac71a241"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-13.txt
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, 08 Sep 2011 17:44:16 -0000

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 8, 2011, at 12:28 PM, John Tamplin wrote:
>
>>  If we do go with this, I would prefer an additional statement for
>> client->server, stating that if the client sends content controlled by
>> potentially hostile code over a WebSocket connection, it MUST mask the
>> contents.
>
>
> I don't think that statement is quite correct.  Masking may not be needed
> in some cases where hostile code is present; e.g., if there are no
> vulnerable intermediaries present.  And the requirement as you've stated it
> would require masking within the data center, since the SSL termination box
> would technically be sending content controlled by potentially hostile code.
>

Good point.  Seeing as how it is difficult to write an explanation of when
it would be safe to disable C->S masking, I think it is better to keep the
hard-won consensus of the existing document and leave it for a future
revision of the spec, with a note as suggested by Joel.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email