W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1994

Re: Draft 01 of HTTP/1.0

From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@wired.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:39:32 -0800 (PST)
To: Chuck Shotton <cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>
Cc: "Eric W. Sink" <eric@spyglass.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.BSD.3.91.941221141455.15224O-100000@get.wired.com>

On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Chuck Shotton wrote:
> At 1:09 AM 12/21/94, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> >If, instead of a string, we specified exactly where (both by hostname and
> >by path) the password authentication is valid, there's be no ambiguity as
> >to when the browser automatically resends the authentication information.
> 
> This is predicated on the assumption that all data being served is coming
> from a traditional file system and that's what the path represents. It
> would be very tedious to have to specify authentication rules for every
> record in a database, for example. A specific server (or client)
> implementation of HOW authentication realms are defined doesn't seem
> germain to the HTTP/1.0 discussion. What a particular string in a httpd
> config file means is up to a specific server implementation to determine,
> not the HTTP/1.0 standard.

HTTP/1.0 is documenting current practice, and I outlined what current 
practice is and how it was so badly broken and what needs to be fixed.  I 
totally agree that we shouldn't tie the definition to a server to the way 
a normal filesystem works by looking at a path - do we have a definition 
yet for wildcard characters in URI's?

> The current standard is clear about when to send an authentication header.
> It's sent in response to an authentication request from a server. In an
> entirely separate transaction, the server receives the second request and
> validates whether or not the authentication info is valid. This allows the
> client to send authentication info whenever the CLIENT feels it is
> required. 

If browsers actually did this, almost every file reteival on our site 
would require two separate connections.  If this negotiation were to go 
on within one session, as hopefully HTTP/1.1 will allow it to, then there 
would be no problem.  However it is very useful, at least in the current 
setup, for a browser to know ahead of time that an access to a particular 
URL will require an authentication header, thus elimanating the 401 error 
code and retry step.  

> I'm not sure I understand why you care if a client sends improper
> authentication info for a realm it has wandered into. It is equivalent to
> sending no information at all, which is acceptable.

But then what happens?  Does the browser 1) retry a previous password, or 
2) prompt the user for another password?  If it's 1), then we need some 
heuristic for determining which previous password to use, and sending the 
wrong password would be a security risk.  A simple string as the realm 
key is dangerous - the only secure way is "okay, you've connected to me, 
now you may use this same password here, here, and here".  2) is 
unacceptible for those who want to create a seamless authentication space.

> How the server is mapping configuration info for security (a "string") to
> the actual authentication of data it serves is completely transparent to
> the client. 

But it's not, in current practice.  Try this.  Telnet to www.hotwired.com 
port 80, and issue the command "GET /Login/ HTTP/1.0\n\n".  You'll see:

WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="HotWired!"

When clients get that the first time, they usually ask the user "enter 
your name and password for "HotWired!"".  So, I don't see how you can say 
it's transparent.

> Whether a server interprets a "AuthName" command as a string to match, an
> exact path, a complete URL, or something entirely different is something
> for a NCSA httpd server to decide. All the client needs to know is that the
> authentication info it supplied is invalid. Don't forget that httpd is only
> one of MANY server implementations, and they don't all define
> authentication realms the same way, or with the same definition of what
> constitutes a realm.

That's not current practice.  I can set up two different realms on my 
server here, set up links between them, and users should only ever have 
to type their passwords twice to bounce between them.  The client 
distinguishes between them by the realm string.  That just happens to be 
the way things are defined now.

> Your assumption that "realms" have some meaning in the context of the
> HTTP/1.0 protocol is probably forcing the standard to do something that is
> properly the domain of client and server implementations of security and
> not their HTTP implementation. Namely, define what constitutes a security
> realm for all client and server implementations. Given the infinite variety
> and structure of data that can be served via HTTP, it seems inappropriate
> to try to accomodate a specific interpretation of what constitutes a
> "realm" into the standard.

If you're saying turn it over to the HTTP-security working group, fine.  
If you're saying it doesn't belong in HTTP, I disagree.  

...
> As far as the client is
> concerned, the realm info present in the server's authentication reply
> serves two purposes. The first is as a prompt for the client user. The
> second is as a way to easily look up authentication already entered that
> may be maintained internally to the client at runtime.

And for HTTP/1.1 we're trying to make the process more intelligent, since
the heuristic for that "look up" and retry step is too vague right now. If
we can get beyond the simple request-response-closeconnection mode to
request-needmoreinfo-newrequest-response-closeconnection then the need for
a realm is *almost* abrogated, since the client doesn't have to guess
which areas need authentication to save a transaction.  There's still a
need for the client to know when a realm is the same as a previously
authenticated area, and when it needs to ask the user for another
password.  This is very important - giving the same password over and over
for the same logical area, whether it's a collection of directories on the
same machine or a particular collection of directories on remote machines,
is considered a *bug* by the user. 

> To sum up. Clients cannot know the authentication info they send (or fail
> to send) is inappropriate for the realm they are accessing until they try.
> So, clients make some smart assumptions about when to send authentication
> info to avoid hassling users with password requests for every URL. What
> constitutes a "realm" is an implementation-specific detail of the SERVER
> and the client cannot know how the server has partitioned its data with
> respect to security. This is just good practice when trying to develop
> secure systems. Clients are only told that their access attempt failed. Not
> why, or what the actual structure on the server looks like. Just that they
> failed. Given this, it seems impossible to define ahead of time WHEN a
> client should send authentication info. I think the current practice, and
> current HTTP/1.0 standard accomodates these requirements just fine.

We're defining current practice, which is clearly different from what 
Chuck thinks is the best way to do this.  Current practice is what allows 
our server to only require the user to enter their password once for 
almost all actions, and whether Chuck believes it or not clients do use 
the realm string to differentiate between authentication areas.  Future 
versions of the spec should expand upon this instead of deprecating it - 
I think we all agree that requiring the user to type the same name and 
password for every access to the same authentication space is a bad idea, 
yet being "promiscuous" in throwing names and passwords about is also 
undesireable.

So, here's my attempt at rewriting that part of the HTTP/1.0 spec to meet 
current practice (my edited lines marked with a *):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.4.2 WWW-Authenticate

   The WWW-Authenticate header field must be included as part of the 
   response if the server sends back a "401 Unauthorized" Status-Code 
   on a request from the client as part of the Basic Authentication 
   Scheme described in Section 9. This header field indicates the 
   authentication scheme in use and the realm in which the requested 
   URI belongs.

       WWW-Authenticate        = "WWW-Authenticate" ":" (
                                   ( "Basic" realm )
                                 | ( extension-scheme realm ) )

*      realm                   = "Realm" "=" *text

*   The first word of the field value identifies the authorization 
*   scheme in use and is followed by the name of the authorization 
*   realm, which in combination with the hostname of the machine
*   being accessed defines the authorization space. If a request is 
*   authenticated and a realm specified, the User-ID and password 
*   can be assumed to be valid for all other requests within this 
*   authentication space - thus, any 401 error response to a 
*   non-authenticated request that specifies this realm 
*   should be immediately retried with the name and password for
*   that realm.  

*       Note: The realm may not span more than one hostname.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I think that defines current practice better than what was there. 
It doesn't make any suggestions about when clients should try and guess
that a given URL will need authentication ahead of time, but it also
preserves the enter-password-just-once mechanism.  Browser writers should
write their code carefully to avoid a retry loop like the one Netscape had
in one of their early betas. 

Does this solve it?

	Brian


--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Your slick hype/tripe/wipedisk/zipped/zippy/whine/online/sign.on.the.ish/oil
pill/roadkill/grease.slick/neat.trick is great for what it is. -- Wired Fan #3
 brian@hotwired.com  brian@hyperreal.com  http://www.hotwired.com/Staff/brian/
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 1994 15:41:37 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:10 EDT