Re: [websec] Content sniffing

"Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> Tue, 10 July 2012 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
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 28F5A11E810C for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 f3ysw6wQcNVc for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1638D11E80F4 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.89.253.207] (port=52063) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1SoPT0-0007J0-SG; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:42:18 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE5ia_hM0J4QBYUcLKkei6bv+Pk4mGxWLhVtpi1S_D0tv=ezA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:42:17 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <18D2BFE7-6F14-4B7E-BDDE-FA9F7E134E88@bbn.com>
References: <CC7E8027-2CCE-41B7-9244-1638C15830A5@bbn.com> <CAJE5ia-qAyM1v9JrKJaO6ORi48oVFfk9x13Pw48M8SnB746D9g@mail.gmail.com> <71595112-9084-47B8-BD2E-44381509536E@bbn.com> <CAJE5ia_hM0J4QBYUcLKkei6bv+Pk4mGxWLhVtpi1S_D0tv=ezA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [websec] Content sniffing
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:41:55 -0000

On Jul 9, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Adam Barth wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
>> I haven't thought much about this, but a couple of thoughts:
>> 
>> The binary prologue means that the document is not valid HTML, so in principle, it shouldn't be accepted as HTML.  It makes you wonder what other stuff you could put in there that the browser would stuff into the DOM without it being obvious on the wire, say, to a proxy.  I'm imagining things like encrypted / compressed Javascript code that could be unpacked by the more obviously HTML part of the page.
> 
> You don't have to imagine.  It's specified in HTML5.

Could you clarify?  What is "it"?  Reference would be helpful.

Is there really a use case for inserting into the DOM arbitrary octets that are not syntactically part of the HTML page?

--Richard



>> In a related vein, the "Text or Binary" section of draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff says that nothing scriptable must come out of sniffing a binary blob.  Yet in this case, it produced "text/html", which is obviously scriptable.
> 
> The browser isn't sniffing HTML in this case.  The server sent a
> Content-Type header with text/html.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> 
>>> Why is this sniffing gone awry?  Nothing bad seems to have happened in
>>> this example.
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
>>>> Related to draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff, an example of sniffing gone awry:
>>>> <http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/squirrel/>
>>>> 
>>>> It's a valid JPEG image that contains and HTML snippet in a comment segment.  As a result, when a browser loads the URL expecting an image, it renders the image content, and when it expects HTML, it skips the binary junk at the top and renders the HTML [*]. (In both cases, the server reports Content-Type text/html.)   What's even more startling is that Chrome helpfully adds the binary junk at the top as the first child of the <body> element in the parsed DOM!
>>>> 
>>>> --Richard
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [*] At least in Chrome 20.0.1132.47
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> websec mailing list
>>>> websec@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
>>