Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis (Transport Layer

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

Blumenthal, Uri wrote:
> 
> In my understanding, TLS-established server_name should be
> enforced by the server.
> 
> And Martin - I couldn't disagree more with you. The whole point of
> using TLS is to enforce who can access what. So the client makes sure
> he accesses the right server, the server makes sure he grants access
> to the right pages on the right virtual host. And if your server
> doesn't do that - please kindly tell me what commercial or
> freeware product it is included in, so I can avoid buying or
> using it in the future.

There seems to be a significant misunderstanding.

The Host header field of an HTTP request is a detail of an
application protocol.  The hostname conveyed by the TLS extension
server name indication (SNI) happens at a competely different
protocol layer.

The difference becomes obvious when you add reverse proxies
into the picture (those which terminate the TLS wrapping).

Conceptually, the Host: header field of a HTTP request is
part of the URL.  If a reverse proxy perform URL rewriting,
it may as well have to rewrite Host: header fields.  That
depends entirely on the backend architecture of each
particular software installation.


Whether or not an application may want to make consistency
checks between a Host: Header field and a hostname received
via SNI at the specific point of the backend architecture
where TLS was terminated depends entirely on the backend
architecture, and is an application issue.


-Martin