[websec] #11: failing insecure connections and user recourse

"websec issue tracker" <trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org> Tue, 19 July 2011 21:39 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: websec issue tracker <trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
To: draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec@tools.ietf.org, jeff.hodges@kingsmountain.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:38:50 -0000
Message-ID: <070.af0bfffe62bd5e0a6e782fea2e8d2597@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Resent-To:
Resent-Message-Id: <20110719213903.D572A228011@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:39:03 -0700
Resent-From: trac+websec@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: [websec] #11: failing insecure connections and user recourse

#11: failing insecure connections and user recourse

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg00076.html

 Subject: Re: [websec] failing insecure connections and user recourse (was:
  Some questions about HSTS)
 From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:42:03 -0800
 To: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>

 [ I'm outta the office this week; expect longer than usual delays ]

 Yoav Nir noted..
  >
  > In sections 2.4.1.1, point #9 says: 9.  UAs need to prevent users from
  > clicking-through security warnings.  Halting connection attempts in the
 face
  >  of secure transport exceptions is acceptable.
  >
  > ...
  >
  > Point #9 seems to say contradictory things. On the one hand, it says
 that
  > "UAs need to prevent..." and I interpret "need" to mean "MUST", but on
 the
  > other hand, halting connections is just "acceptable". So is it MAY or
 MUST?

 section 2.4.1.1, comprises core functional requirements for addressing the
 threats noted in an earlier section of the Overview -- its non-normative
 expository material.

 The relevant normative language in the present spec
 (draft-hodges-strict-transport-sec-02) is..

    7.3. Errors in Secure Transport Establishment

       When connecting to a Known HSTS Server, the UA MUST terminate the
       connection with no user recourse if there are any errors (e.g.
       certificate errors), whether "warning" or "fatal" or any other error
       level, with the underlying secure transport.


 Paul Hoffman notes..
  >
  > ...the IETF, generally does not make such decisions for users. We make
  > protocols and recommendations to developers. The text in this document
  > should be worded as such.

 Agreed. I propose moving the "with no user recourse" phrase (no more, no
 less),
 in the language quoted above, to section "10. UA Implementation Advice",
 and
 appropriately elaborate on it there (and in security considerations).

-- 
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
 Reporter:  jeff.hodges@…                  |       Owner:  draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec@…             
     Type:  defect                         |      Status:  new                                                  
 Priority:  major                          |   Milestone:                                                       
Component:  strict-transport-sec           |     Version:                                                       
 Severity:  Active WG Document             |    Keywords:                                                       
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/11>
websec <http://tools.ietf.org/websec/>

[websec] #11: failing insecure connections and us… websec issue tracker
Re: [websec] #11: failing insecure connections an… websec issue tracker