Re: [Webpush] CALL FOR CONSENSUS: VAPID cut-and-paste protection

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 18 August 2017 04:17 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBAF132836 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 EYWjkvGfLfg2 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (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 420E01323BD for <webpush@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x232.google.com with SMTP id m88so29408500iod.2 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uvooI3DQUyd9DsDvsl878iYpb6LG4hkcJK9jofzVYYk=; b=rrcafx0pYXYstbpsk9nEkDI1aqyLJPZhd2xtmCc9UrOp+3kgABn5jKfJ/7ocU090vp 52by1spVy5Z/SQs8nkPq4KTyCsjPxVxWCAGYrthW5BKHPcT93Oa1QUp6tuT7eQ5526RL UqLJcv7x7s35N9taOHciQhwCJ9JIe/0gJDeJGoEwoAi6dlb5PaaILfM3r6qrRckELQ5o xyptEvj1Z0DGOJc67sWG5JLyz++jtB85C78zzOjyB/BuQgTWF5bPhX9oO6IXbTq8c50d O71P2BkVEmoK+qNnXjLN7aOtTsKpxT9e/ni4fNqbefatLLHPC9P4HV+aJRagMoutKngh XmHw==
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=uvooI3DQUyd9DsDvsl878iYpb6LG4hkcJK9jofzVYYk=; b=oq0SHoIIO3DdrjzGMcKdXMDy5bjhKCg22LBl01lu0RZIZBXpw4HbsXE5rWOJLZ3N9C UeVhSsh7ldeyrDLmt9uZ3naA2BlMc+7jasuYpWqyS1ycmcOP57SMY+xfSAjAUohR8TqV 90iP/ez3Leh3YJ0BddTwZtQLQulYvaK8L4I0TLvecYhJEpSw7OZBrSamte4Ai2QeXO/s shzvbCkE4yREMi8hSNVJfkS/o7TQME1B0ub9/hL+oVT44LpmPhTTTMuTDCWHgoQWQrc+ SwXZwEmN2sT0CVs/u3Gc7MVHUTGyK8tWl3G06Vd2xhNk9YeSmY2HwzuDNsKqXlryN/rQ C3MA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gWl2POmBnxA4bfwFBexxyEOe24sA+DS5CwSUr+PhnA6SzkM3Fq qnc0F2KGz+JxW9RY1yfJsdd7DA1+6w==
X-Received: by 10.107.201.65 with SMTP id z62mr7716282iof.74.1503029817565; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.164.42 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABF6JR0E+o9hL2uQKyqih2z03adqkH0OXp8f0MNqqdDv-YJPUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABF6JR0E+o9hL2uQKyqih2z03adqkH0OXp8f0MNqqdDv-YJPUg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:16:57 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVJU0n+z342_eEZingxA+VWh30FHADRcS5gdbUeJ0X07g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/1La8LRl-GaDaUadodAYEzBgl-pk>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] CALL FOR CONSENSUS: VAPID cut-and-paste protection
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of potential IETF work on a web push protocol <webpush.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webpush>, <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/webpush/>
List-Post: <mailto:webpush@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush>, <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 04:17:00 -0000

On 18 August 2017 at 12:58, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org>; wrote:
> I believe the working group has already discussed adding such a mechanism
> and rejected it (with citation to an email discussion or minutes reflecting
> such discussion).

We did consider options that don't have this unfortunate property.
Client certificates were a strong contender.  They would have been
ideal if not for operational challenges.

Here's the email that I think was pivotal on this subject:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/_qwcGCuDekERw5o31t0MjFJGTh8

Later there is also:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/poGnqtBFlFe3hpzvkiS3Rp5L94g

There are yet more emails that follow on from this where we discuss
scope of the token and relative costs.  The first of those is here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/xrqo-LUb7mrPV6eF1xgyJoqMgCU

I found the rest of thread instructive as a reminder of what happened,
I had forgotten the details of this discussion.

I didn't read meeting minutes, the above seems sufficient.