IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sat, 09 October 2010 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 F22D13A6874 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.707
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.269, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 pcpAHMi-+hHl for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D2D3A68BD for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6so771845ywa.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 09:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.25.11 with SMTP id 11mr2268923agy.104.1286642601666; Sat, 09 Oct 2010 09:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.91.190.1 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20101009055723.GL4712@1wt.eu>
References: <AANLkTiksehiSp7DB17MBVBb457p6pN5E8vma6FHz1c9j@mail.gmail.com> <4CACA667.3040309@caucho.com> <4CAF9589.1060007@caucho.com> <AANLkTinnnT5Oib7FvDdZF2q_WUT8=q8KNmfkfajE0Mor@mail.gmail.com> <4CAFA043.10101@caucho.com> <AANLkTi=eo-cjBz160FN0cn53v4-CpDSYaEneqkr_ZP7k@mail.gmail.com> <4CAFAC2B.5000800@caucho.com> <55bva61goeqtn0lifgjt5uihf50obh7kf4@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <4CAFB9C4.6030905@caucho.com> <AANLkTinv5Ym5jwUEqS76z3UkVa7GpmOBT_WXhBbFK0-m@mail.gmail.com> <20101009055723.GL4712@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 09:43:21 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimY2DjxgZybibSRtc7L34Wns2KhQC=Wa9K6PYku@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00163630e99f39acb0049231d328"
Cc: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
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: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:42:17 -0000

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:43:06PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > This case definitely needs to be addressed. It's a completely standard
> > hosting
> > configuration.
>
> it is correctly addressed by respecting the HTTP protocol which consists in
> sending Connection: close in the request so that there is no risk that
> either
> the web server or any intermediary consider additional data as a second
> request.
>

As I understand this suggestion, for it to provide security it relies on
servers always
treating any message with Connection: close as the final message. I don't
know if
servers always do this correctly, but since it's not really required for
interoperability,
I suspect that some do not.

All other things being equal, I would generally prefer to have a design
which failed
safely even if the server did not process Connection: close correctly. I
believe that the
design that Adam and I proposed in fact satisfies that desideratum

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email