Re: [websec] Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux

[Adam Barth <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:36 PM, =JeffH <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Strict-Transport-Security = "Strict-Transport-Security" ":"
>>> directive *( ";" [ directive ] )
>>>
>>> STS directives:
>>>
>>> directive = max-age | includeSubDomains | STS-d-ext
>>>
>>> max-age = "max-age" "=" delta-seconds
>>
>> What happens with
>>
>>    max-age="1"
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Do you expect all recipients to reject this? Depending on the parsing
>> API they use they might not even know that the value was quoted on the
>> wire.
>
> Offhand, I'm not super sure, but after thinking about it while
> researching/writing the below, I'm thinking "yes", max-age="1" is invalid
> according to the ABNF and we should do whatever we do in error cases (which
> is a separate open question). But implementors' parsing API and its problems
> are out-of-scope for a spec such as this.
>
> This obviously isn't the first HTTP response header field with such a syntax
> and thus these potential issues (this one with a delta-seconds value, and
> the issue you note below wrt "includeSubDomains"), yes?
>
> In doing a quick grep on RFCs for delta-seconds, I note that some of the
> specs using it (I didn't look at them all) appear to not directly address
> the case above.
>
> Except for RFC6265, which in the algorithm for parsing "Max-Age=", it
> algorithmically provides for ignoring a value that doesn't match the
> effective value ABNF of..
>
>  ["-"]*DIGIT
>
> ..which would catch the max-age="1" case, but doesn't seem to explicitly
> address..
>
>  max-age=

That's handled by some more general processing rules in the spec.  The
net result is that it's ignored.

> But in any case, perhaps (additional) browser implementor folk could chime
> in here -- do we really need to address such detail-level issues (both of
> the examples above and below) in the syntax/grammar we specify in specs such
> as these? Or is the new ABNF proposed in the original message in this thread
> sufficient?

Generally, we prefer to be instructed exactly how to behave for every
possible input (even illegal ones).  There's a long history of
quoted-string not being implemented correctly by browsers.  I spec
this as just splitting the string on ; and then processing each
substring separately, ignoring bogus/future ones.  I know Julian has a
dream that all HTTP headers will be parsed the same, but quoted-string
is sufficiently ill-defined w.r.t. error handling that I prefer to
avoid it.

>> > includeSubDomains = "includeSubDomains"
>>
>> There's a tiny risk that some implementations will handle value-less
>> parameters the same way as parameters with empty values, such as
>>
>>    includeSubDomains=
>>
>> or
>>
>>    includeSubDomains=""
>>
>> but maybe I'm over-engineering here.
>
> Yes, I'm wondering if this might be over-engineering -- I note that in
> RFC 6266 you didn't distinguish/address this sort of case for "inline" or
> "attachment" -- are you feeling now that you should have, and thus we ought
> to do so going forward?
>
>
>> Also, identifiers "max-age" and "includeSubDomains" are
>> case-insensitive, right? This follows from the ABNF,
>
> yes, and yes.
>
>> but might be worth
>> saying again in prose; in particular because it also needs to be the
>> case for all future extensions.
>
> Agreed. I see how you did it in RFC 6266 and will endeavor to do similarly.
>
> thanks again,
>
> =JeffH
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> websec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
>