Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

Collin Jackson <collin.jackson@sv.cmu.edu> Mon, 13 August 2012 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <collin.jackson@west.cmu.edu>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7A521F858A for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.81
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.81 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a1WTN9Bfh1vH for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA9B21F85F7 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so3932513yhq.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=KbyV/x7lGNEBZlYNbvjVsxNajwDDBXL/ebyDjwnJgI4=; b=cIXaetTVAWtGs7XF4vPch5+iAoc2dN1YtVg+YOYXtFXIvtdHeTyKnTFuvEhnnqViSs Jc0sQLLKYntCtkaQ0cBldIKPavkRkg6cWX1J9fb/qZYOdtOUUwRc/5RocjyJCcrpmLC5 rG2DGfzxDkRaErz4yNWR7t3mzBmqbFQh1Ihl38ntbZwskFXzQMp5k3zxi4ypM1gDdDUJ qCdGwLB4KJUoy+u+DNtVBYaixuZsR9OWnsQiHyW2dvk0I+pn1YZSQQtxCCk9r6UipY1L fHuRBisOHHjRCnPijIFa2+F/CQRW5/IKbxeSEbY4FQZOYH58QjVHgoppSs8VnVxCO0/g OdIg==
Received: by 10.236.141.42 with SMTP id f30mr8945655yhj.120.1344885738814; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y10sm654752yhd.6.2012.08.13.12.22.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so3751340ghb.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.219.226 with SMTP id pr2mr19847587pbc.1.1344885737410; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.21.131 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <370C9BEB4DD6154FA963E2F79ADC6F2E1C251C@DEN-EXDDA-S12.corp.ebay.com>
References: <5024352D.4040604@KingsMountain.com> <CAOuvq23dxoKyV2No55WEYePhVj+Fcab5cF65C1FsiqgtmEkXMA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+cU71kx4Ck2aMeSHhnpb--aZ+mRmszQdojepM4aapVn2TsR=Q@mail.gmail.com> <370C9BEB4DD6154FA963E2F79ADC6F2E1C251C@DEN-EXDDA-S12.corp.ebay.com>
From: Collin Jackson <collin.jackson@sv.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:21:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CANVv-VfcVBhd7AUqsZ83dKJiDL3V=_Fd2Wmm=o7WXMiEgCAusg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hill, Brad" <bhill@paypal-inc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl9jU+lPuX2rRJGZYGQOnMEykPms93JSAOQvzYIt+yibCFAs+zzvZ3YenjGN0EzQeyBOmq7
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:22:19 -0000

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Hill, Brad <bhill@paypal-inc.com> wrote:
> There are, of course, non-browser HTTP clients that may respect HSTS, but EV certificates in particular are aimed at a browser audience as it is about user trust indicators.
>
> EV is *not* a security boundary in browsers, however.  It is a brand awareness and consumer trust product.
>
> I am not aware of any user agents that treat EV and non-EV content as having different effective security principals for purposes of the Same Origin Policy.  So, although it is more difficult to get an EV certificate than a DV one, that does not provide any effective security against a MITM attacker who can obtain a DV certificate.  Such an attacker can always act as a partial MITM and provide, using a DV certificate, trojan script content in an iframe with no security indicators or substitute an external script in a legitimate page and that script will have full access to content delivered with an EV certificate.
>
> I would posit that means a feature like LockEV has little to no practical value unless and until (not likely) Web user agents provide origin isolation between EV and non-EV content.

Quite the opposite, you just made the argument in favor of LockEV. If
LockEV is being used, the MITM attack with a DV certificate would no
longer be possible, because the DV certificate would not be accepted
by the browser.

Collin