IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] ignoring STS header fields with undefined directives (was: new rev: draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-08)

Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> Fri, 01 June 2012 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <palmer@google.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 24E6F11E80E0 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 MrQpc3Gbl6cm for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C0C11E8097 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so1983679lag.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=8aKFVcCSBVN4/razCID6WuK3QVdUS0s4dlK7DBA8ezI=; b=DFDkIXFrnjqNKjHf5dKEtat/FyNik15bBZJV4ymZ9sOQqTorjwl3EXPPLj4u5fIn4/ /k7AoIy0j2fRjoBEn5gLawg8A2KPqRk+HYkpYv+uQLAboj0vTuefhO5fD+F+z1boYhBU fU8NPg04i8xIqk8OstXbGmmN5PpCGHn/1/vh3wHJFP7X1f+koM2UcC8/r0uS0mNV+9fr mjzmo7fapzHgQ80L0LOEP+105tQlP1v+Z+K/hVhils+jv26fbWZxyl1wvcbPcvroPl7q U4wj8SskDDH2KAT7RM57eKIDyXQ7dnnbDatDkMt36R2xKLRLTjh29dbvYuO+WPhLyG/y 1vhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=8aKFVcCSBVN4/razCID6WuK3QVdUS0s4dlK7DBA8ezI=; b=iQLZ6OJfpg1vbWseXAeQwhyydQrCaBSmkU1EEl7OaOMxDBZzDqsUCstKsPIkjP8d28 WY3cGLyeJY/Th7OuRaJliLpl5VxWuw5i/ORWoLTaKEBvLcxqqf0dtho9KhoC8R3/7Ndz l+XKQLALIDwWEPm2UHj2q6Fp2kCaKzbUFLi0CYhbmvmNW8rrtxde2uNWdHRr0rR0GZC3 QWimXPA8V/9ufFSuvE77F6DRzCjurYUDGbkyk0tR9orzY3RsrQbD1p08MU70Umq80Zhk lKhHc/bL1z/56WJ1rBL5e6LS+Zmu4j8FYoonPFR9KnrxlviBbsK/ZoAUmu9Q3N2cFtj0 tmqg==
Received: by 10.152.108.178 with SMTP id hl18mr4506377lab.11.1338584563031; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.108.178 with SMTP id hl18mr4506367lab.11.1338584562864; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.99.129 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FC92727.5000402@isode.com>
References: <4FC90AA5.8090502@KingsMountain.com> <4FC92727.5000402@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:02:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOuvq20WbqvLM3v2RqSBx9TYOFYhWdwqFyhxDGH+OYiuA-Q02A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/vHZy7qHX3csxvG7sNXoJ2iKrPLnzpAt9MoB7ykGcRA380YF6i150rJBguaxzAxxLj2hB3pMoSaK5G/b9Qye5O8GFbyrJqJlK7/cpfZjJO+J9CReFVLC47evs8gn+E7Fy46Rl
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] ignoring STS header fields with undefined directives (was: new rev: draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-08)
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: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:02:45 -0000

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:

> I agree with Julian: this will make the header field effectively non
> extensible. And if you update the header field by adding new values, all
> older implementations will start ignoring it, which is a deployment
> headache.

For public key pinning, I'm allowing undefined directives in my
implementation. I should check that I'm explicit about that in the
I-D, come to think of it...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email