- From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:42:10 -0400
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
OK HTTP is not going to be acceptably secure for the types of application TLS is typically used today. But that is still only 1% or so of traffic. that leaves quite a gap. On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > In message <CAMm+Lwgr1cnM3-iz_quKhN9N_dS1d6qdv26kSvKZ+T_Hr9L+hw@mail.gmail.com> > , Phillip Hallam-Baker writes: > >>5a) The TLS-HTTP gap >> >>Now as far as HTTP is concerned, headers have security implications >>and so HTTP is not going to be acceptably secure without either >>transport layer or packet layer security. > > I disagree. > > What HTTP lacks is a clear distinction between "envelope" and "body" > the way SMTP and NNTP have it. > > HTTP/2.0 would enable a lot more sites to run with cryptographic > security, if there were an unprotected envelope for load-balancers > to act on. > > I also think it should be possible to mix protected and unprotected > requests on the same TCP session. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 17:42:37 UTC