- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:13:37 -0800
- To: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Cc: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeoucHfNgTxp9AFvktLwya0P5T6b7NY1u7EVoUyvCrOVw@mail.gmail.com>
Consider? Sure, however the downside is that we lose information because we have a minimum padding of 8 bytes instead of of minimum padding of 1 byte. I believe that there would probably be interesting side-channel attacks against the padding mechanism if it was always a minimum of 8 bytes unless we added padding to 8-byte-boundaries to all frames.. .. and that would be a waste. -=R On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote: > Would it make sense to consider adding an explicit padding frame instead > of adding padding *to* existing frames? > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yup. Padding should be on any frame including a headers block, plus the >> data frame. >> -=R >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>wrote: >> >>> I thought about adding padding to everything, but like Roberto said, it >>> gets even trickier to do correctly (i.e., without messing up the security >>> properties), and it seems a little silly to me to add padding to a frame >>> that has a constant size. Adding it to PUSH_PROMISE, though, allows hiding >>> the true size of the promised headers, and makea processing of both that >>> and HEADERS frames almost the same, conceivably simplifying implementation. >>> I can see an argument for it but... meh. Padding is not a security >>> feature unless it is used right. Adding it everywhere doesn't really help >>> that, and opens up stuff even wider for abuse in the myriad cases where it >>> has no real security benefit. >>> >>> -=R >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Should we consider adding padding to all frames? >>>> >>>> We have two bits reserved at the beginning of the length field that we >>>> could use for the two padding flags, independent of frame type. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> Right now (as of draft-10), DATA, HEADERS, and CONTINUATION frames can >>>>> contain padding to obscure the actual size of the data being sent. I >>>>> believe it would make sense to also add the option for padding to >>>>> PUSH_PROMISE frames, as they carry (pretty much) the same type of payload >>>>> as HEADERS frames, and can benefit from padding in the same way. >>>>> >>>>> I can make a pull request if others think this is a good idea. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> -Nick >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 22:14:04 UTC