Re: [websec] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Helo Ryan,

Thank you for your response.  Please keep in mind that in most cases, I am
trying to help you clear up the language and ensure that the security and
privacy concerns are clearly understood in the draft to readers that might
include security professionals, CSIRT teams, security administration staff,
and others.  I do think the draft is good and would like to help progress
it, but do think some language fixes would be beneficial.

I read the draft again and will try to clarify the points below providing
suggested language where possible.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-19: Discuss
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Overall the draft is very good, thank you for writing it.  I just wanted
>> to discuss some of the security/privacy considerations and see if we
>> could improve the language and make sure the set of concerns are clear.
>>
>> The privacy consideration section reads more like possible attack
>> scenarios that would fit into the security considerations.  What privacy
>> related concerns result from these attacks?  Having that spelled out to
>> differentiate the risks as privacy only would be helpful (if appropriate)
>> or moving this into the security consideration section *IF* it is more
>> generically applicable.  If I am missing something and this is only
>> privacy related, it would be good to understand that in this discussion.
>>  Adding some text on how these attacks could be used to expose privacy
>> related information would be helpful too.
>>
>
> The first paragraph spells out precisely why this is listed as a privacy
> consideration:
>
>    Hosts can use HSTS or HPKP as a "super-cookie", by setting distinct
>    policies for a number of subdomains.  For example, assume example.com
>    wishes to track distinct UAs without explicitly setting a cookie, or
>    if a previously-set cookie is deleted from the UA's cookie store.
>
> Neither of these attacks undermine the protections afforded by HPKP.
> Indeed, they exist precisely BECAUSE of HPKP offering a new means of web
> storage. Essentially, all storage mechanisms introduced when dealing with
> sites - whether it be cookies, new APIs like IndexedDB, exposure of
> persistent storage such as cryptographic keys, or, as in both HSTS and
> HPKP, remembering data about a previously visited site - represent new and
> potential ways to uniquely identify a user, which the two examples spell
> out.
>
>
>>
>> For the first example, it seems it is the possibility that a report goes
>> outside out the intended scope is the concern.  The mitigation seems to
>> be provided in the last sentence of #4, but couldn't this be other
>> information leakage and not just privacy?  Let me know if I am missing
>> something that explains why this is privacy specific.
>>
>
> I'm not sure how that was reached, as the description of the risk was
> explicitly enumerated
>
>    and the ability to pin arbitrary identifiers to distinguish UAs.
>
> This is also reiterated in the #2 and #3.
>
> The same applies to the second example, which hopefully the above
> explanation is sufficient to demonstrate how the spec already highlights,
> in several means, how this is a privacy issue (distinguishing the user
> independent of cookies, aka a "super-cookie")
>

In reading the draft again, the language issue for me was with the usage of
"report" in the text.  After looking at this draft again, it seems the only
report type discussed is a "pin validation failure report", in reading up
on other uses of report-uri (W3C) it seems to be tied to a header, in this
case PKP-RO response header.  The term report is pretty generic on it's own
and this is where my confusion came in, since that wasn't explicitly stated
(these are tied together and it's the only report discussed).  When you get
to the privacy section, it just lists the term report on it's own and not
as a specific report.  There is no mention of the report type in that
section, and yes, I probably should have realized that it was tied to the
response header.  I do see that is the only report discussed in the draft,
but was not well-versed in this area, so it wasn't clear to me on first
read.  That may be fine for most readers, but it wouldn't hurt to state the
use of the term 'report' in this draft is specific to "pin validation
failure report" in section 2.1.3 or to mention the report type again in the
privacy section.  My discuss comments above were all related to the generic
term "report".  I'll let it go if you feel strongly that this is not
necessary since I was able to figure it out on a second read.

>
>
>>
>> In #3 of the second example, the last sentence includes the following
>> clause:
>>           and giving some UAs no
>>           Valid Pinning Header for other subdomains (causing subsequent
>>           requests for m.fingerprint.example.com to succeed).
>>
>> Does this mean that these subdomains are succeeding when they should
>> fail?  It might just be me, but that is not clear in the text (or if they
>> are supposed to succeed).  It sounds like they are not supposed to
>> succeed and this is the security issue.  How is this privacy specific?
>> Again, this may just be me, but an explanation would be helpful.
>
>
> Do the above references to the existing portions of the spec make this
> clearer?
>

In this case, I'd like to see clearer language that describes the issue and
includes why it is an issue.  I am okay on the privacy specific questions
as that was because of the generic use of the term "report" and I was able
to figure out that was the cause of my concerns from my first read of the
draft. Bullet #3 is a run-on sentence and both fixing that and including
implications would go a long way.  Here is the current bullet:

      3.  example.com can distinguish 2^N UAs by serving Valid Pinning
          Headers from an arbitrary number N distinct subdomains, giving
          some UAs Valid Pinning Headers for some, but not all
          subdomains (causing subsequent requests for
          n.fingerprint.example.com to fail), and giving some UAs no
          Valid Pinning Header for other subdomains (causing subsequent
          requests for m.fingerprint.example.com to succeed).


Here is a suggestion, please teak the language if I didn't get this quite right:


      3.  example.com can distinguish 2^N UAs by serving Valid Pinning
          Headers from an arbitrary number N distinct subdomains.

          Assume in this example, Valid Pinning headers are assigned

          for subdomains n.fingerprint.example.com and the includeSubDomain

          directive was intended to cover all subdomains

          m.fingerprint.example.com. Where Valid Pinning Headers were

          assigned, some were given to UAs but not for all subdomains causing

                    subsequent requests for n.fingerprint.example.com
to fail.  Valid Pinning Header are

                    not given to some UAs for other subdomains,
causing subsequent

          requests for m.fingerprint.example.com to succeed.


> As noted above, the attack is about identifying and tracking users through
> means other than cookies. Such attacks are also known as "super-cookies",
> which is the term explicitly used in the introduction of these attacks.
>
> As noted, the attacker is the site serving the headers itself, which is
> why it's a privacy issue.
>
Thanks.

>
>
>>
>> In the last sentence of the privacy considerations section, what is meant
>> by the description "forensic attacker"?  I find this term confusing.  Was
>> this intended to mean that techniques used in forensic analysis could be
>> used by an attacker to discern information that could be of interest?  If
>> that's the case, I think it would be clearer to the reader if that were
>> stated instead.
>>
>
> This was in response to Alissa Cooper's YES vote, in which a threat model
> of an attacker with physical access to the machine attempts to recover
> state of the user's browsing history, which the UA had otherwise cleared.
>

Sure, I have no problem with the point, but would like to see the commonly
used terms for this attack type to avoid confusion for the reader.  The
term "forensic attacker" isn't one used in the incident response space, so
if you could replace that term with what I think is the intended meaning,
"forensic analysis techniques could be used by an attacker to discern this
information that could be of interest (or useful)", would help.  We don't
usually cover attack types that require full exploit of the system or
physical access, so if this got dropped, that would be fine too.  The use
of such tools isn't limited to physical access, but also is possible once
the host is compromised and such tools can be installed and used by an
attacker (much higher likelihood than a physical access attack).  The
current text does not make a distinction and that is good, I don't think
you should be getting too deep here anyway.

Propose change from:

   A forensic attacker might
   find this information useful, even if the user has cleared other
   parts of the UA's state.


To:

     Forensic analysis techniques could be used by an attacker to
discern this information and

     may find it useful, even if the user has cleared other
   parts of the UA's state.



> Per Eric Lawrence's feedback, this third section will be reworked into
> it's own privacy consideration bullet, and hopefully you'll find the
> clarification suitable.
>
>
Thanks for you work on this section.

>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I agree with Richard's comment that the document is well written and an
>> important document, thank you for writing it.  The style changed a little
>> toward the end and I had some trouble with long sentences in the security
>> & privacy considerations sections.  This should be easy enough to fix and
>> may be done with the RFC editor anyway.
>>
>> To Richard's point on operational concerns versus security concerns, are
>> there explicit security attacks that could occur with the max-age
>> variations described?
>>
>> In 4.2, I can't see this being more than an operational concern since it
>> fails when overlapping pin sets are not used.  Are we missing a gap that
>> leads to a security concern?
>>
>
> I suppose it depends on your threat model and how you view domain
> authority.
>
> In the example given, subdomain.example.com is bypassing the pins set for
> example.com+includeSubDomains, depending on timing. That is, if
> example.com is visited first, then subdomain.example.com MUST be
> equal-to-or-a-subset-of the pins for example.com, by virtue of the known
> pinned host evaluation.
>
> Thus if example.com wishes to administer pins for their domain (and all
> subdomains), it's necessary for them to prevent subdomains from setting the
> header.
>
> Now, you can see this as an operational concern if you view the
> example.com and subdomain.example.com as the same administrative entity,
> but that's sometimes not the case (e.g. shared hosting sites like Amazon
> AWS, GitHub's pages, or Google AppEngine)
>

Thanks for the explanation, it would be helpful to have something along
those lines in the draft This is a non-blocking comment, so ignore if you
so choose, but here is a suggestion to clarify this as a security concern
(in addition to an operational one).  Perhaps if you explicitly stated that
a denial of service could result from this configuration issue, that would
help.  Also stating the concern is heightened in a service provider
environment or one where a single domain is used across administratively
distinct applications, recommending that the includeSubDomain directive
should not be used in such circumstances to avoid this issue.

>
>
>
>>
>> 4.3 makes sense to me as a security concern that drives operational
>> practices.
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks!


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen