Re: [Unbearable] Dealing with header injection through reverse proxies

Leif Johansson <> Tue, 18 July 2017 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC90E131AE6 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H6FB9nWfR54P for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABEEA131DD5 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a10so20470658wrd.0 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SX9Vub6fBW9CoyXGquWrY5FiKg9Jsj89bIgFhizZ30I=; b=cNQxNMcIuWBgJ4d8IRuzm5R6O61/qDGn8VDxZMU2wPQc3DFcAMO3UO+/uFH2nSFuly V+ftCdk3P/E+qQ75In2IOkxzgI0VFFYeTxfl3Hmclj4gPAhsMpDn0gZt1gO3t32RCvSa kyaxNzD1b09nTA6AQBN/hEQNaPUhC5uD8oij99R+O+IRQ3JDMsyx4+VrILkYIVASiOcI RIU/yaubKFgmI7GP/iu5ERyzZQHcpFb+l0w2VA2CNu3SHIeN0Vo21xx3mnnoFQr3hpGC UK2oU+TXycgCWYjE2JhymOp3GBwN7UoR3z9Q6SN01tMKMmyBXYG7yZRfzDQULeH6Z4fB oTWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SX9Vub6fBW9CoyXGquWrY5FiKg9Jsj89bIgFhizZ30I=; b=FOBbtozBk8s667sDrEM4+dt6CozDsXGIMnjqbViuNClvGFLGLMF3U4I8YnxZhvt1Rt 0EcSZZyFRtkotSICq+NKkwOS63Ap+ziNEGGGXbMMy/bUFNHtAekmdxwHS7addPGRihop PYH5ru+7v9WCPHyxUflrMLs7RFxIOHEjQzPzVQHv9BIpNAdx42j35cF7yL628eyikNG0 zhlIeVQbJCzDMMERD53HzbDtwltQ4Y8FNVFX3Ys2ztQBJjskdPRaSZpSqu2kJuVD55up Xyt91Hl7zsSvYU3liOEvEAdxgMGO3e02aMmd6GbqLnPm5G/2Dcc0fnUNR0gy5QFp/MiU 5Ftg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1113UlQUXu3/6/5AktgtwFgqS6OS+himaNGklvvrSKRXllfjDiJn JhL6CD8vWaaoShKKdUvVPQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id o11mr546951wro.16.1500370021715; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:fd4d:a3a2:d45d:796b? ([2001:67c:370:128:fd4d:a3a2:d45d:796b]) by with ESMTPSA id w142sm454263wme.5.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
References: <> <> <>
From: Leif Johansson <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:27:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Unbearable] Dealing with header injection through reverse proxies
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"This list is for discussion of proposals for doing better than bearer tokens \(e.g. HTTP cookies, OAuth tokens etc.\) for web applications. The specific goal is chartering a WG focused on preventing security token export and replay attacks.\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:27:11 -0000

> Having said that, this is something that I definitely want to see
> done, regardless of whether it's the right solution for this
> particular issue or not.

With my chair hat on I'll note that this threat is sent to both
the tokbind list and the http WG list

I am however working on the assumption that if a general solution
for protection against header injection turns up it will probably
not get done in this WG

I also think it is up to the WG to decide if we want to depend
on such a solution or stick to Brians approach of saying "you
MUST have solution" in the security considerations section (and
potentially dealing with an IESG DISCUSS at a later stage).

	Cheers Leif