Re: [websec] wrt IDN processing-related security considerations for draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec

=JeffH <> Fri, 10 February 2012 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2E321F8533 for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:12:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.371
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.365, BAYES_05=-1.11, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I4+Oa0IRHppL for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a5]) by (Postfix) with SMTP id F2A3021F8514 for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:12:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 18748 invoked by uid 0); 10 Feb 2012 23:12:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 10 Feb 2012 23:12:50 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=eTAYfOwo5pDgVT+ez6cmovmp5HBowT3GYCATPfY7lT4=; b=FptPl8ZFwRxMkMScFQBUCnfMRk1Xeqvk1KA3SWUxsNES51AYns1F/x3vjqO2uns39fd9vWjuDt0iyhVbniXhws3E2psWswsFzwX1lI6rmGelEhxY9Gg8ThVvF0CwIapD;
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <>) id 1Rvze5-0002zD-UK; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:12:49 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:12:50 -0800
From: =JeffH <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/3.1.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <>, Paul Hoffman <>, IETF WebSec WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Subject: Re: [websec] wrt IDN processing-related security considerations for draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:12:52 -0000

Thanks for reviewing the IDNA text Pete.

 > I really, truly wish we could avoid all reference to 5895 and UTS46.
 > (And this comes from a co-author of the former.) Basically, those
 > documents are about taking user (or other sorts of "unwashed" input) and
 > doing something 'magic' before handing it to something that expects
 > proper IDNs. Really, I'd like this kind of protocol document to say,
 > "What goes is this field is something that is properly pre-processed by
 > whatever handed it to us and if it's bogus, we're not going to do
 > anything to 'help' it."

Note that that's what this spec attempts to do in the intro to section 7..

 >     This processing model assumes that the UA implements IDNA2008
 >     [RFC5890], or possibly IDNA2003 [RFC3490], as noted in Section 11
 >     "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Dependency
 >     and Migration".  It also assumes that all domain names manipulated in
 >     this specification's context are already IDNA-canonicalized as
 >     outlined in Section 8 "Domain Name IDNA-Canonicalization" prior to
 >     the processing specified in this section.
 >     The above assumptions mean that this processing model also
 >     specifically assumes that appropriate IDNA and Unicode validations
 >     and character list testing have occured on the domain names, in
 >     conjunction with their IDNA-canonicalization, prior to the processing
 >     specified in this section.  See the IDNA-specific security
 >     considerations in Section 13.2 "Internationalized Domain Names" for
 >     rationale and further details.

 > But I understand that this may be "happy
 > thoughts". If you really can't avoid talking about user input processing
 > in this document, I will hold my nose and say no more about it.

yeah, sigh: lacking a more generalized spec laying out all that subsumed 
detail, it seems prudent (from a completeness perspective, at least) to include 
it.  (I brought up concocting such a generalized 
how-shud-app-protocols-do-IDNA(-during-"transition-from-IDNA2003-to-2008") spec 
in the precis WG meeting in Taipei ietf-82, but there was a fair bit of 
pushback on the notion there)

But, if the ADs and IESG were to decide we could get by without such language 
(i.e. section 10 IDNA: Dependency and Migration) in this spec we could excise 
it. (I'll leave it in for now)

thanks again,