IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Unbearable] on not listing 'Sec-Token-Binding' in the Connection header field?

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Thu, 09 February 2017 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: unbearable@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: unbearable@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A67129BD4 for <unbearable@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:38:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pingidentity.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MFgIAmVa-GoF for <unbearable@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22b.google.com (mail-yb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68B56129BD2 for <unbearable@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id w194so2957881ybe.0 for <unbearable@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 08:38:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pingidentity.com; s=gmail; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zoR6dSADKNSHT2B2Yb2ULJuFdo0vHJH4tpTK5bkwfb0=; b=FGvFP0FSZBSuC/k+nxcgKOcgxZa/zlAmodMK3dAw4Vk9M7v8t9pxl0vKEYYA6Xo+me yw7Y1lSmuqoYxgmufdghGs3uFauy/p3425Nutibvbz9RL95NN61IfQHMjtJ3lY9ycPXm /bWue3htAFIA3xpI6nyhNlBZ7kQmWbKil5vGg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zoR6dSADKNSHT2B2Yb2ULJuFdo0vHJH4tpTK5bkwfb0=; b=MhxkXQwfTtnPvkfETswgL4WXN3b1b3b/IUQZTVVq9/J0VOlJkkLZPMvwhHKvLc3MKz yHeCSZf99ULj3LbqBXfjisQINhKuEZfSjjdkV1ptrG9HaQtTSWrjSotCtACVVCCJ82eR dtAVQELDeC7g7KJ3eMap0nm5ygcZ0vAdBdkJFVMFIJsJADP52otFLWykkCtYVk0+LbBK P4ZuocU+nwUeXqTpeCpOCz9VyOWgsNbBzrFnYabsbWdRsP5Ze45oofL9Qd6991o1qzJW vIbE3+rpOWcokW+G16x337vlYMBgCOw7LR2qRRfT8nqR4WrHmMvxM6jRnZbFb+CqJDgr H57g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39msprO45AP+K7CUZzym4nXX3Np0al+Qbp/TsEHaVJsgNRzabJMDD3q6BYphBvGJuMS6o3RP7c4fd1EIJ6aO
X-Received: by 10.37.170.137 with SMTP id t9mr2935603ybi.145.1486658290469; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 08:38:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.126.131 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:37:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <074faef6-b425-17f8-ac05-223834a2cc0b@KingsMountain.com>
References: <074faef6-b425-17f8-ac05-223834a2cc0b@KingsMountain.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 10:37:40 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCSwvcKyN6t+9cTLSAJu9+5Uz27Db5NW_zy9W7Bx71gG4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19afdc4eaed505481b9b71"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/unbearable/a0oeJEsXXUEEhryc-YC_4UfDnJw>
Cc: IETF TokBind WG <unbearable@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Unbearable] on not listing 'Sec-Token-Binding' in the Connection header field?
X-BeenThere: unbearable@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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.\"" <unbearable.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/unbearable>, <mailto:unbearable-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/unbearable/>
List-Post: <mailto:unbearable@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:unbearable-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unbearable>, <mailto:unbearable-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:38:12 -0000

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>
wrote:

>
> I agree with this for security considerations reasons -- we want the
> Sec-Token-Binding header to be hop-by-hop in sync with the underlying TLS
> connection and not be "leaked" downstream unless it is a conscious
> decision, e.g., in the tls terminating reverse proxy (TTRP) case.
>
>
But the client is only making a connection to a server and client does not
know whether it makes sense for that server to forward or not. And it
shouldn't know that.  Sec-Token-Binding shouldn't be listed in Connection
header field by a client.

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status