Re: [websec] Question regarding RFC 6797: What is the proper reading of §8.3 #5

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

This is how I understand it:


> On 1 Mar 2018, at 13:59, Svensson, Lars <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> When implementing HSTS, my colleagues and I had discussions on how to correctly interpret §8.3, #5 of RFC 6797 [1]. In our opinion the text is ambiguous and we hope that you can help us to clarify what is the proper reading of that section. In §8.3 #5 the following is stated:
> 
> [[
> If, when performing domain name matching any superdomain match
>       with an asserted includeSubDomains directive is found, or, if no
>       superdomain matches with asserted includeSubDomains directives
>       are found and a congruent match is found (with or without an
>       asserted includeSubDomains directive), then before proceeding
>       with the load:
> 
>          The UA MUST replace the URI scheme with "https" [RFC2818], and
> 
>          if the URI contains an explicit port component of "80", then
>          the UA MUST convert the port component to be "443", or
> 
>          if the URI contains an explicit port component that is not
>          equal to "80", the port component value MUST be preserved;
>          otherwise,
> 
>          if the URI does not contain an explicit port component, the UA
>          MUST NOT add one.
> 
>          NOTE:  These steps ensure that the HSTS Policy applies to HTTP
>                 over any TCP port of an HSTS Host.
> 
>   NOTE:  In the case where an explicit port is provided (and to a
>          lesser extent with subdomains), it is reasonably likely that
>          there is actually an HTTP (i.e., non-secure) server running on
>          the specified port and that an HTTPS request will thus fail
>          (see item 6 in Appendix A ("Design Decision Notes")).
> ]]
> 
> The question is how to interpret the "and" and "or" connections between the paragraphs. One possibility is to use arithmetic ordering ("and" before "or"), another to collect all "or" statements into one expression and then apply the "and". In the first case we arrive at:
> 
>          The UA MUST replace the URI scheme with "https" [RFC2818], and
> 
> 	(
>          if the URI contains an explicit port component of "80", then
>          the UA MUST convert the port component to be "443", or
> 
>          if the URI contains an explicit port component that is not
>          equal to "80", the port component value MUST be preserved;
>          otherwise,
> 
>          if the URI does not contain an explicit port component, the UA
>          MUST NOT add one.
> 	)
> 
> That is, the UA _always_ has to replace the URI scheme with https and then will continue to handle the port component. In pseudocode this would be:
> 
> If( Scheme = "http" ) {
> 	Replace scheme with "https"
> 	If ( URI contains explicit port "80" ) {
> 		Replace port with "443" ;
> 	} ElseIf( URI contains explicit port ) {
> 		Keep explicit port ;
> 	} Else {
> 		Do not add explicit port ;	
> 	}
> }
> 
> 
> In the second case the reading would be:
> 
> 	(
>          The UA MUST replace the URI scheme with "https" [RFC2818], and
> 
>          if the URI contains an explicit port component of "80", then
>          the UA MUST convert the port component to be "443", or
> 	)
> 
>          if the URI contains an explicit port component that is not
>          equal to "80", the port component value MUST be preserved;
> 
> 	# The otherwise starts a new scope so we repeat the first clause:
> 
>          otherwise,
> 
> 	(	
>          The UA MUST replace the URI scheme with "https" [RFC2818], and
> 
>          if the URI does not contain an explicit port component, the UA
>          MUST NOT add one.
> 	)
> 
> That is, the UA must change the schema to https _only then_ when the port is explicitly "80" (and then convert the port to 443) or when there is no port.
> 
> In pseudocode:
> 
> If ( Scheme = "http" ) {
> 	If ( URI contains no port ) {
> 		Replace URI scheme with https ;
> 	} ElseIf ( URI contains port "80" ) {
> 		Replace URI scheme with "https" ;
> 		Replace port with "443" ;
> 	} Else {
> 		/* don't touch this, do nothing */
> 	}
> 
> }
> 
> This way it's possible to run internal http-based services (e. g. behind a firewall) on other ports than 80 without having to upgrade those to https.
> 
> But if the UA acts like described first, then it will try to upgrade to https on any other port but 80, too. 
> As a consequence, you then will have to offer all "real" services on other port with https - with the exception of a "https-bumper" on 80.
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6797#section-8.3
> 
> Thanks for any insight,
> 
> Lars
> 
> 
> *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek *** 
> -- 
> Dr. Lars G. Svensson
> Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
> Informationsinfrastruktur
> Adickesallee 1
> 60322 Frankfurt am Main
> Telefon: [phone]
> Telefax: [phone]
> mailto:[e-mail] 
> http://www.dnb.de
> 
> _______________________________________________
> websec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec