- 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