IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Sat, 09 October 2010 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.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 079E63A697F for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.986
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 4rvfc4OiomXF for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F349F3A696D for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so620031gwb.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.41.17 with SMTP id t17mr3901790ybj.443.1286584640419; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q14sm3530323ybk.7.2010.10.08.17.37.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so1764867iwn.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.157.207 with SMTP id c15mr2834696ibx.143.1286584637091; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.149.20 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4CAFB724.9040108@caucho.com>
References: <AANLkTikszM0pVE-0dpZ2kv=i=y5yzS2ekeyZxtz9N=fQ@mail.gmail.com> <4CA53E6B.1040808@caucho.com> <AANLkTikOyvF5AHTf4sDD=rWmK2FTD6R6LaHa4KTqkbcm@mail.gmail.com> <4CA68098.8010404@caucho.com> <AANLkTinYhW9MnnM3tkbCWziePyM7mFUEteKhw5OGp-eS@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=_ejOCNiM49VW5q05=H7-M0jzAvXvGaKM1b7mX@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimyJj+Jxz1Q6fLrQ8iosGkD+0shUh3=td+jX_Do@mail.gmail.com> <4CA772A1.2090808@caucho.com> <AANLkTi=nLixtxMEd4B58Zp5FRbquNX2C_=7gCf9BGGQs@mail.gmail.com> <4CABCBFA.6020100@caucho.com> <AANLkTi=5wbCXWpOtUQT1MndgCxt9gj6uR_3U=nONpjKc@mail.gmail.com> <4CABD11F.3060500@caucho.com> <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> <AANLkTi=0WOHJ-+JRKz3biDKaW1qRrM7pXCuqYhB4M3X3@mail.gmail.com> <4CAFB724.9040108@caucho.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:36:47 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=nKUbZB5Br6GaXG=5quXgjc2tu7cDUrkLOpMJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
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 00:36:16 -0000

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> wrote:
> Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> wrote:
>>> However, I will point out that using "WEBSOCKET" as the HTTP method would
>>> let the ISP reject the initial request, protecting other virtual hosts
>>> from
>>> this attack.
>>
>> That assumes the ISP is aware of WebSockets.  We're considering
>> vulnerabilities in servers that are not upgraded to understand
>> WebSockets.
>
> Existing servers can already reject HTTP methods. That's one of the reasons
> I've suggested it:
>
>  <Limit WEBSOCKET>
>   Deny from all
>  </Limit>
>
> Yes, your ISP would need to add those lines or something similar to the web
> server configuration. ISPs in shared hosting environments do need to be
> aware of security issues, even if they can't upgrade servers arbitrarily.

Requiring existing servers to update themselves to be secure from new
browser features is a non-starter.

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email