- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:32:42 +0000
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
one could argue that by deprecating bodies on non-200 CONNECT responses because of inability of browser vendors to deal with the problem properly, we effectively DID do UX here. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> To: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu> Cc: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>; "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>; "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Sent: 23/06/2015 7:10:11 p.m. Subject: Re: Browser display of 403 responses bodies on CONNECT >This was touched upon in WPD: > >> When user agents encounter 5xx responses to a CONNECT request from a >>WPD proxy, they MUST present the response to the end user, but MUST >>NOT present or process it as a response to the eventual request to be >>made through the tunnel (i.e., it has an unidentified payload, as per >>{{RFC7231}} Section 3.1.4.1). >> >> NOTE: Many user agents refuse to show an error response to a CONNECT >>to the user, in order to deal with the issues brought to light by >>{{bad-proxy}}. While effective in dealing with those attacks, doing so >>effectively disallows communication between the proxy and the end >>user; this requirement is designed to re-open that channel. > >where {{bad-proxy}} is ><http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=79323>. > >Fundamentally, I think this is a user experience problem, in that >anything that can render HTML can fool some number of users thinking >they're talking to the "real" Web site. For better or worse (I think >better), we don't do UX here. > >Cheers, > > >> On 18 Jun 2015, at 7:00 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:51:28AM +0000, Adrien de Croy wrote: >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz> >>> >>>> Have a read through >>>> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=479880>. >>>> >>>> Amos >>> >>> that's really sad. >> >> Indeed. IMHO the problem above is caused by the confusion between the >>proxy >> and the origin. A proxied response doesn't come from the origin until >>the >> 200 appears. The only origin without 200 is the proxy itself, and if >>it was >> handled this way there would be no problem with cookies. >> >> Willy >> >> > >-- >Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2015 07:35:19 UTC