W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies?

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 00:28:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdwRqpvv5i3w93E25M+Z35wDZGRKeot7bQsoiv+9j8OxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:09 AM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> CDNs, accelerators/caches, traffic-optimizers/traffic-shapers have
>> usecases that wouldn't require the browser to give up any confidentiality
>> (that the site didn't direct them to do, at least).
>>
>
> I'm going to ignore the CDN case, since I don't think they're explicit
> proxies from a UA's perspective (unless I'm misunderstanding). How do you
> serve cached content without knowing the URL of the resource? Are you
> differentiating between object confidentiality and metadata (URL/headers)
> confidentiality here? I think these questions apply to the other use cases
> you refer to, but am not completely sure.
>

As proposed in one of the drafts, if the content-provider provides metadata
indicating that a resource can be served from a cache and a means of
authenticating it, then the UA can access a proxy via a TLS connection.
Only the proxy and the site and the UA thus know what was being requested.
If we wish for these requests to be made via HTTP/2, then, for the
web-browsing case over the internet, then we'll be extremely likely to be
using TLS
Since one would like to retain as much confidentiality as possible, sending
a request for the resource completely in the clear would not be optimal,
even if deploying HTTP/2 in the clear works for the web-browsing case over
the internet on port 80.


>
>
>> For enterprises, the new trend is apparently to allow users to use their
>> personal devices. These devices would be outside the normal administrative
>> chain and would likely cause headaches.
>>
>
> I agree using personal devices would likely cause headaches. But you're
> not saying explicit proxies solves this somehow, do you? If so, I missed it.
>

Enterprises like these have three choices:
1) Disallow access to such devices
2) Force users to install root certs
3) Force users to configure a proxy explicitly.

Arguably #3 is the best, from both the enterprise, site and user
perspective as setting up an explicit proxy should be easier than
installing a root cert for both enterprise and user, and the site now gets
signaled about the presence of a proxy.

-=R


>
>>
>> -=R
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:37 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <
>> willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Pardon me if this is obvious, but it's not immediately obvious to me
>>> what will cause people to use explicit proxies instead of MITM proxies? Who
>>> is going to deploy them? The 2 cases I can think of are:
>>>
>>> (1) People who are using HTTP interception ("transparent") proxies
>>> (2) People who are already using SSL MITM proxies
>>>
>>> In case (1), it appears to me that proxy operators may want explicit
>>> proxies, because theoretically those interception proxies provide vital
>>> functionality that they don't want to lose if more things go over HTTPS.
>>> Because if not, their alternative is to use a SSL MITM proxy, which
>>> requires them to own the client devices so they can administratively
>>> install additional root certificates. This bears a high cost, both in
>>> perceived privacy impact and in requiring administrative maintenance. By
>>> this description, I suspect this group probably consists of network
>>> operators, like mobile network operators or ISPs or what not. I suspect
>>> it's very costly for them to have to administrate customer devices.
>>>
>>> But I don't see what an explicit proxy will help with here. Is the
>>> requirement that there be a way to automagically configure the explicit
>>> proxy *and* default to giving up one or more of the confidentiality,
>>> integrity, and authentication guarantees normally provided by TLS? I can't
>>> see a browser defaulting into letting automatically letting an explicit
>>> proxy MITM them. Will it just be opt-in (which, given how much browser
>>> vendors "love" presenting UI to end users, is also controversial...)? If
>>> so, is that good enough for whoever is deploying these proxies? I have to
>>> imagine that's very unsatisfactory for them. What's the vision here?
>>>
>>> Now, as far case (2), if the proxy operators can already deploy their
>>> MITM certs on client devices, then they already own those devices. This
>>> sounds like enterprise computing devices or schools or prisons or what not.
>>> Now, if they already own the devices on this network, what incentive do
>>> they have to adopt explicit proxies? It sounds like they would just lose
>>> power. Is there a carrot here? SSL MITM proxies are already transparent to
>>> the client and origin server, so I don't see what leverage either entity
>>> has here.
>>>
>>> Would love to hear peoples' thoughts here.
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 08:28:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC