Re: [Unbearable] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tokbind-ttrp-01.txt

Vladimir Dzhuvinov <> Fri, 04 August 2017 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BC2132006 for <>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nTUZdN5eMnjx for <>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ECF4131FE5 for <>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by :SMTPAUTH: with SMTP id dhrTdCoQZcYpUdhrUdS9ad; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:02:17 -0700
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Vladimir Dzhuvinov <>
Organization: Connect2id Ltd.
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:02:15 +0300
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: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms030901030205030901020302"
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfK/uPQD/Z2DJLSXyvgnMkCc8XMTXhL3kC2+nJmZwXsZjYgu7QBStuDJ68SDscALR1CL8vqG1T1B8UPf9g8vIRZw8gyW+YLNMonN7yOr9jIrHExJZivc9 GgZxKMQfqDDzj9A56oVfmoizK+CfRAgabzy0VTI94UvrkQeW+G5fFp7a1TNgtdQYwpQfi+qyqztkRA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Unbearable] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tokbind-ttrp-01.txt
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: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 19:02:50 -0000

On 04/08/17 00:14, Brian Campbell wrote:
> I agree that standardizing the header names significantly increases the
> likelihood that implementations will properly scrub them.
> I'm told that this mod_token_binding module for Apache
> <>, for example, was recently
> updated to do the header sanitation automatically in the course of
> processing rather than relying on configuration directives of other modules
> to overwrite the headers. So it can't be misconfigured, at least not with
> respect to this issue. Standardizing the header names allows and suggests
> for the sanitation to be an implementation thing rather than a
> configuration thing, which is a good thing.
If the proxy implementers get on board with this, as you mention, it
will be great. It helps that the implementations are relatively few.

I wonder, has there been anywhere work on standardizing a header pattern
that can only exist between a reverse proxy and a backend server?

> As John said, there were a number of suggestions in Prague and on-list
> around how to prevent/detect header injection in more of a fail closed way.
> Vladimir's specific idea didn't come up but there were conceptually similar
> ideas.
> I maintain that it would be very inappropriate for this draft to define a
> one-off mechanism for a backend server to detect client injection of the
> headers. The potential problem of client header injection is not at all
> unique to the functionality of the draft so the draft shouldn't define a
> unique solution.
>  If there's the will and/or appetite to develop a common
> standardized mechanism detecting/preventing client header injection through
> reverse proxies, I'd be happy to help contribute to that effort.
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Bill Cox <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov <
>>> wrote:
>>> The downside of having set header names is that attacks on badly
>>> configured TLS proxies become much easier to carry out. This is my concern
>>> about the TTRP spec in this form.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>> I think most coders adding the standard header will the RFC, and will be
>> more likely to remember to scrub the header.
>> One question about the spec: Why must the "sec-token-binding" header be
>> removed?  I did that originally in an implementation, and was asked to stop
>> "molesting the headers".
>> Bill
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unbearable mailing list