- From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:22:22 +0000
- To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
[resent after bounce on first attempt] I don't believe that leaving the choice of schemes to the browser creates any problems that are not there anyway, so I propose the following replacement for 4.6 (I could not find any other section that had any text on this - please point it out if I missed it). The first paragraph is changed to remove the semantics associated with the offered order, and to add some normative language about not sending replayable credentials. The second is unchanged except for striking the last sentence. 4.6 Weakness Created by Multiple Authentication Schemes An HTTP/1.1 server MAY return multiple challenges with a 401 (Unauthorized) response, and each challenge MAY use a different scheme. The user is free to choose from among the offered challenges it understands and request credentials from the user based upon that challenge. The user agent SHOULD choose the scheme it considers to be most secure; the Basic scheme, or any other scheme which transmits credentials in a way that allows for replay of those credentials, SHOULD NOT be used if there is an alternative available. When the server offers choices of authentication schemes using the WWW- Authenticate header, the strength of the resulting authentication is only as good as that of the of the weakest of the authentication schemes. See section 4.8 below for discussion of particular attack scenarios which exploit multiple authentication schemes. -- Scott Lawrence Consulting Engineer <lawrence@agranat.com> Agranat Systems, Inc. Embedded Web Technology http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Friday, 31 July 1998 08:24:16 UTC