W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2010

Web-keys (was: Re: Draft minutes of TAG teleconference of 21 January 2010)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:04:09 -0500
To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8C38F5AD.B708DD79-ON852576BB.000190DB-852576BD.0057F615@lotus.com>
Tyler: 

Here are some comments on web-keys and the web-key paper [1] including a 
response to your email [2].  I'll be mixing in quotes from your email and 
the paper.  I'll leave for a separate email responses to your specific 
concerns about our TAG findings and their advice on secrets in URIs.

By the way, it may be of passing interest that a very long time ago, I 
spent nearly two years consulting on a capability-based operating system 
[3] at the Stanford CS department.  So, while I don't claim any expertise 
on recent developments, I did at one point have a pretty good 
understanding of the fundamental principles of capability-based computing, 
and some experience designing an actual system.

Is there a need for some new access and protection model for the Web?

A lot of the web-key paper is devoted to justifying the need for something 
other than the password-for-a-site + cookies + same origin policy that are 
in widespread use on the Web.  While I don't necessarily agree with every 
point made, I do agree with the conclusions:  those mechanisms have 
serious drawbacks, CSRF is a serious problem, fine-grained access control 
is desirable, etc.  So, looking for alternative security mechanisms is 
indeed worthwhile. 

Is the Web a good foundation for a capability-based system?

The fundamental premise of the web-key work is that the Web, used 
carefully, can approximate the characteristics of a capability-based 
system.  That is, web-keys use URI's as "capabilities", which can be 
informally described as a tokens that simultaneously provide addressing 
of, and convey permission to access, a resource. 

The classic security model for a capability system involves using 
mechanisms of the system itself to grant or transfer capabilities in a 
protected way.  That is, capability tokens are usually managed by the 
protected kernel of the system, much as file handles are managed in Unix, 
and transmission of a capability from one user to another is mediated by 
system mechanisms that ensure capabilities are given only to those who 
should have them.  Indeed, in the purest form of capability system, the 
ability to transfer a capability is itself a capability.

The RFCs that define URIs, HTTP, HTTPS and the associated http and https 
URI schemes do not, by my reading, provide such an architecture or such 
guarantees.  Unlike a classic capability-based system, in which 
capabilities are managed by a protected kernel or similar 
hardware/software, URIs retrieved from servers (e.g. links in a Web page), 
are returned in clear text to user agents that are free to copy those URIs 
most anywhere.  Transmission using HTTPS is reasonably well protected, but 
subsequent manipulation or redistribution by user agents mostly isn't. 

Ironically, the web-key paper makes just this point, discussing some of 
the pertinent RFC's:
> Both RFC 2616 on HTTP/1.1 [HTTP] and RFC 3986 on the URI [URI] 
> provide security guidance advising against the inclusion of 
> sensitive information in a URI. The text from Section 7.5 of 
> RFC 3986 provides a good summary of the arguments presented:
> "URI producers should not provide a URI that contains a 
> username or password that is intended to be secret. URIs are 
> frequently displayed by browsers, stored in clear text 
> bookmarks, and logged by user agent history and intermediary 
> applications (proxies)."

The problem is, the web-key itself (the hash) is a secret, and is 
therefore subject to this advice.  The whole model for web-keys is:  use 
them when you're confident that the URIs won't wind up in unintended 
places.  The above quotes make clear that users agents are, with some 
important exceptions, not responsible for protecting the text of links 
that they receive.  While the particular secrets mentioned are usernames 
and passwords, the advice about URIs being displayed, stored in clear 
text, etc., clearly applies to all information that must be protected. 
Also: RFC 2818 [4] is the URI scheme registration for the https scheme, 
and as far as I can see it does not mandate or even suggest limiting the 
transmission or transcription of https scheme URIs.

The web-keys paper goes on to try and deal with some of the particular 
exposures by cases:  it points out that with care, browser caches can be 
emptied promptly (which only reduces but does not eliminate risk), 
shoulder-surfing isn't always a real issue, etc. The problem is that one 
can only deal with security by cases if the cases in question are known 
and bounded.  That's not true of the Web.  User agents can, without 
violating RFCs, do all sorts of problematic things we might not have even 
thought of.  Ironically, the web-key paper in an earlier section discusses 
just the sort of unbounded innovation that's perfectly consistent with 
pertinent RFCs, but problematic for the web-key security model:

> Many modern browsers include an option to report each visited 
> URL to a central phishing detection service. The IE7 
> implementation of this feature first truncates the URL to omit 
> the query string. The IEblog indicates this approach was taken 
> to protect user privacy and security [phishing filter]. 
> Unfortunately, this precaution is not taken in other browsers. 
> Users of these other browsers who enable online phishing 
> detection must trust that confidentiality is adequately 
> maintained by the remote service. Automatically extracting data
> from an end-to-end encrypted communications channel and 
> transmitting it to a third party defeats the intent of the 
> encryption. Hopefully this iatrogenic security flaw can be 
> fixed in future releases of these other browsers.

The paper claims that these systems represent a security "flaw";  I view 
them somewhat differently.  In particular, I'm not aware of any normative 
specification that they violate, and it's not clear that what they're 
doing represents bad practice; there's nothing in Web architecture that 
requires a centralized implementation of a user-agent.  The browsers 
mentioned above are choosing to delegate an aspect of their security logic 
to an off-site service -- seems to me that's fine if it meets their needs. 
 

In the future, other user agents may do different things in this spirit. I 
don't think you can stamp them out "by cases";  you have to admit that the 
Web architecture does not bound, very much, what user agents do with the 
links that they find in pages retrieved from the Web.

Furthermore, we can't even bound the cases of interest to links retrieved 
using HTTP or HTTPs;  URIs are normally dereferenced using HTTP or similar 
Web protocols, but they are also passed around in many other ways, 
including in filesystems, and in emails.  Ironically, the email to which I 
am replying has triggered an example of just this exposure:

> The TAG understands that unguessable URLs are used for access-
> control by many of the most popular sites on the Web. For 
> example, this email contains a Google Docs URL [1] for a 
> document I have chosen to make readable by all readers of this 
> mailing list, even those who have never used Google Docs.

This says that the intention is to give access "to readers of [the 
www-tag@w3.org] mailing list" , but it so happens that the owners of the 
www-tag mailing list have chosen to archive it publicly.  Not 
surprisingly, search engines can find the email there, and so it turns out 
that the Google Doc [1] is available not just to "all readers of this 
mailing list", but to everyone on the Web.  To see this, try a Bing search 
for "web-key google docs unguessable" [5] (note, there's no reference to 
the mailing list in the query)].  You'll see that the email comes up, and 
of course it has the link to the Google Doc. Indeed, the email with the 
capability is available directly from the Bing cache [6], without going 
anywhere near W3C servers.

Of course, by emailing the web-key to me and to others, you have also 
(atypically of more rigorous capability-based systems) delegated to us the 
ability to pass on the capability.  All I would have to do is cc: some 
other list in this email, post the link on my Web blog, etc.

Again, all of this is in conformance with applicable RFCs;  there's 
nothing that should be "fixed", and it's not clear that these things can 
be fixed at this late date. 

Are web-key style capabilities a bad idea?

Several commentators have pointed out, correctly, that web-keys or similar 
techniques have been deployed on the Web, and the Google Doc example 
illustrates this.  So, someone thinks they're a good idea and is getting 
value out of them.

True, but we've also just shown that the semantics are, in some ways, 
fragile.  I presume that the engineers at Google and similar sites are 
aware of these limitations, and they find that web-keys provide some added 
protection anyway.  That's fine, but I don't think we can then claim that 
user agents, anti-phishing schemes, etc. are "broken" just because they 
are inconvenient for the web-key security model. 

I'll respond separately with more specifics regarding the Metadata In URI 
finding, but roughly what I'd suggest is:

* Stick with the suggestion that one "should not" put secrets into URIs. I 
think that's good advice, and the RFC's quoted above support it.

* We could/should change the finding to indicate that, although the Web 
does not in general guarantee the confidentiality or careful management of 
link URIs, there are often circumstances in which the practical risk of 
leakage may be sufficiently low that encoding capabilites in a URI may in 
fact be a useful tradeoff.  Such implementations are to that degree 
acceptable, but the burden is on the designers to deal with associated 
risks; it is not anticipated that a large scale effort will be made to 
manage the distribution of URIs more tightly than is the case today.

Use of fragment identifiers

The web-key paper suggests:

"Putting the unguessable permission key in the fragment segment produces 
an https URL that looks like: <https://www.example.com/app/#mhbqcmmva5ja3
>."

The normative specification of fragment identifiers in RFC 3986 [1] says:

"The fragment identifier component of a URI allows indirect identification 
of a secondary resource by reference to a primary  resource and additional 
identifying information.  The identified secondary resource may be some 
portion or subset of the primary resource, some view on representations of 
the primary resource, or some other resource defined or described by those 
representations."

So far, so good, I think.

"The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of 
representations that might result from a retrieval action on the primary 
resource.  The fragment's format and resolution is therefore dependent on 
the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially retrieved  representation, even 
though such a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced."

So, now we have to look at the media-type of the retrieved 
representations:

"For some set of resources, all issued web-keys use the same path and 
differ only in the fragment. The representation served for the 
corresponding Request-URI is a skeleton HTML page specifying an onload 
event handler. When invoked, the onload handler extracts the key from the 
document.location provided by the DOM API. The handler then constructs a 
new https URL that includes the key as a query string argument. This new 
URL is made the target of a GET request sent using the XMLHttpRequest API. 
The response to this request is a representation of the referenced 
resource. "

The media type registration for text/html is at [8].  The pertinent 
section says:

" For documents labeled as text/html, the fragment identifier designates 
the correspondingly named element; any element may be named with the "id" 
attribute, and A, APPLET, FRAME, IFRAME, IMG and MAP elements may be named 
with a "name" attribute.  This is described in detail in [HTML40] section 
12."

I think it's fair to say that web-key's use of fragment identifiers to 
designate external documents is therefore in violation of the pertinent 
normative RFCs, so that's a concern.  I understand that Ajax applications 
in general are putting some stress on the architecture of fragment ids, 
and web-keys are somewhat in that spirit.  Indeed, the TAG has done one 
round of work to explore client-side use of fragment ids in AJAX 
applications;  maybe we should expand that to consider server-side 
innovations like webkeys as well.  Nonetheless, I believe that the use of 
fragids in webkeys is, at least for now, nonconforming to the pertinent 
RFCs, and in that way makes the Web less self-describing.

Another drawback of web-key fragids is that one loses the ability to use 
fragment-ids for their intended purpose in HTML, I.e. to directly 
reference some element within the document.

The Dynamically constructed DOM

The suggested webkey  implementation, in which Javascript dynamically 
updates the DOM of the root document to reflect the contents of the 
dynamically retrieved particular document also represents complexity that 
I find somewhat unfortunate.   That is, the HTML document retrieved by the 
"URL that includes the key as a query string argument" is not treated 
according to the usual rules of text/html, but rather is grafted into an 
existing DOM.  I can't point to specific breakage that results from this, 
but it's at least a bit troubling that this document is not processed in 
the usual manner.  I can't quite decide whether I think this is a serious 
concern.

Conclusions

I've tried to be somewhat careful and specific in setting out these 
concerns.  I hope that won't be viewed as inflammatory or piling on.  As I 
said at the top of my note, web-keys do address a real need.  The widely 
used mechanisms on the Web do have problems.  My personal bottom line for 
the moment is:  it's inappropriate to assume that clients, email systems, 
and the like will in general limit the distribution of or protect the 
storage of URIs.  The normative RFCs don't require that they do (Tyler 
does point to one admonition in RFC 2616, but it covers a quite narrow 
case).  So, those using URIs as capabilities should be responsible for the 
risk that those URIs will wind up in unintended places.  I think the 
advice in the Metadata finding that one "should not" put secrets in URIs 
appropriately reflects these risks, and the advice in the normative RFCs. 
I would have no objection to keeping the existing good practice note, but 
adding a section indicating that in practice some systems do get value out 
of putting secrets into URIs, but that the burden is on those systems to 
do so only when the risks are deemed acceptable for the purpose.

I also remain somewhat troubled by the fact that the web-key trick of 
using the fragment id seems to be in violation of the pertinent 
specifications and loss of use of the fragid for its intended purpose; I'm 
also at least a bit concerned about the dynamic construction of the DOM.

I hope these comments are useful.  Again, I'm speaking for myself;  I 
don't believe that the TAG as a whole has taken a position on web-keys.

Noah

[1] http://waterken.sf.net/web-key
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0100.html
[3] 
ftp://reports.stanford.edu/pub/cstr/reports/cs/tr/83/945/CS-TR-83-945.pdf
[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818 
[5] 
http://www.bing.com/search?q=web-key+google+docs+unguessable&form=OSDSRC
[6] 
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=%22web+key%22+google+docs+unguessable&d=346695414695&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=3723de06,f1f4d797
[7] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.5
[8] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
01/23/2010 05:24 AM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     www-tag@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Draft minutes of TAG teleconference of 21 
January 2010


I understand that sometimes meaning is lost in email and especially in
meeting transcripts, so I just want to check that I understand the
current status of the discussion on ACTION-278.

1. The TAG does not dispute any of the arguments made in my web-key
paper <http://waterken.sf.net/web-key>.

2. The TAG understands that unguessable URLs are used for
access-control by many of the most popular sites on the Web. For
example, this email contains a Google Docs URL [1] for a document I
have chosen to make readable by all readers of this mailing list, even
those who have never used Google Docs. Had I not so chosen, these
readers would not have access and I could have shared access with a
smaller group of people, or no one at all.

3. Some members of the TAG believe that an unguessable https URL is a
"password in the clear", but that sending someone a URL and a separate
password to type into the web page is not a "password in the clear".

4. The TAG is currently sticking to its finding that prohibits use of
the web-key technique because Noah Mendelsohn says: "I don't like
that". There are no other substantive arguments that I could attempt
to refute.

5. The TAG does not dispute my argument that the current finding is
self-contradictory.

I'm hoping there is some significant nuance I have missed. If so,
please point out which of the above statements is false and exactly
why, so that I can engage with that part of the discussion.

--Tyler
Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 16:01:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:19 GMT