W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: fixing TLS vulnerabilities with h2 was: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:02:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NGEngBLkTaqAV1XBPHxJ1h55A2BX_bxQaXHK-XkPgjS0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "C.Brunhuber@iaea.org" <C.Brunhuber@iaea.org>
On 5 June 2014 06:36, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:

> On 5 June 2014 13:37, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:
>> Hi Greg-
>> Thanks for the feedback. Changing the subject though to more adequately
>> reflect what you discussed, which IMO is an important point, namely:
>> Is it the responsibility of h2 to fix security vulnerabilities in TLS?
>> You make a good argument that the answer is no. The very purpose of
>> protocol layering is separation of concerns. In other words, the security
>> protocol, in this case TLS, should be secure (or patched if it isn't) - the
>> underlying protocol shouldn't have to worry about it.
>> Nobody should ever be concerned about whether their bank is using the
>> "right" h2 implementation - eg one that uses constant time string
>> comparison functions.
> ‚ÄčI really feel like these CT string functions are a bit of a strawman.
> People are allowed to put whatever magic sauce and marketing buzzwords they
> like in their implementations; if that helps drive adoption or gain market
> share, ‚Äčthen so be it.
> Regarding padding: I don't quite understand the argument against allowing
> it in the spec. If the h2 library's API makes frame padding options
> available to the application, then the application, which has more chance
> of knowing things like the provenance and value of the bytes, can choose to
> obfuscate them. If the application doesn't use padding, or does so
> improperly, does that count as a security failing of HTTP/2? Is it better
> to make everyone never pad at this level?

Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2014 11:02:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC