Re: WS/Service Workers, TLS and future apps - [was Re: HTTP is just fine]

You must be kidding, the logjam attack showed the complete failure of
TLS and your 1/2/3 (notwithstanding the useless discussions about CAs &
co), which does not apply to the Tor protocol that you don't know
apparently but that fulfills 1/2/3

I am not a Tor advocate, this is just an example illustrating why there
are no reasons to forbid ws with https, and ws with https with service
workers, and ws with https with future things, do you think that
browsers will continue to discuss in the future with good old entities
tied to a good old domain with a good old certificate?

Then what about WebRTC and DTLS self-signed certificates that the web is
trying to secure by some strange ways?

Le 30/11/2015 22:45, Richard Barnes a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com
> <mailto:vitteaymeric@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Not sure that you know what you are talking about here, maybe influenced
>     by fb's onion things, or you misunderstood what I wrote.
> 
>     I am not talking about the Tor network, neither the Hidden services, I
>     am talking about the Tor protocol itself, that's different and it is
>     known to be strong, but this is just an example, let's see it as another
>     secure protocol to connect browsers to other entities that can not have
>     valid certificates for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> HTTPS gives you the following essential properties:
> 1. Authentication: You know that you're talking to who you think you're
> talking to.
> 2. Confidentiality: Nobody else can see what you're saying
> 3. Integrity: Nobody else can interfere with your communications
> 
> Show me another protocol that achieves those properties, and maybe we'll
> have something to talk about.  Tor doesn't.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> 
>     Whatever number of bits are used for RSA/sym crypto/SHA the Tor protocol
>     is resistant to the logjam trivial DH_export quasi undetectable
>     downgrade attack that nobody anticipated during years, on purpose or
>     not, I don't know, but that's obvious that the DH client public key for
>     TLS could have been protected by the public key of the server, like the
>     Tor protocol is doing, so maybe you should refrain your compliments
>     about TLS.
> 
>     And the Tor protocol have TLS on top of it, so below the right sequence
>     is ws + TLS + Tor protocol.
> 
>     And it checks that the one you are connected to is the one with whom you
>     have established the TLS connection (who can be a MITM again, but you
>     don't care, you just want to be sure with whom you are discussing with,
>     like what WebRTC is trying to do)
> 
>     But again, that's not really the subject of the discussion, the subject
>     is what is really the problem of letting an interface that has access to
>     nothing (WS) work with https? Knowing that you can use it with another
>     protocol that you can estimate better, but could be worse, again what
>     does it hurt?
> 
>     Or just deprecate ws because if it has to work only with entities that
>     own valid certificates, then it's of quasi no use for the future.
> 
>     Le 30/11/2015 21:00, Brad Hill a écrit :
>     > I don't think there is universal agreement among browser engineers (if
>     > anyone agrees at all) with your assertion that the Tor protocol or even
>     > Tor hidden services are "more secure than TLS".  TLS in modern browsers
>     > requires RSA 2048-bit or equivalent authentication, 128-bit symmetric
>     > key confidentiality and SHA-256 or better integrity.    If .onion
>     > identifiers and the Tor protocol crypto were at this level of strength,
>     > it would be reasonable to argue that a .onion connection represented a
>     > "secure context", and proceed from there.  In the meantime, with .onion
>     > site security (without TLS) at 80-bits of truncation of a SHA-1 hash of
>     > a 1024 bit key, I don't think you'll get much traction in insisting it
>     > is equivalent to or better than TLS.
>     >
>     > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:52 AM Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com <mailto:vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
>     > <mailto:vitteaymeric@gmail.com <mailto:vitteaymeric@gmail.com>>>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     >     Redirecting this to WebApps since it's probable that we are
>     facing a
>     >     design mistake that might amplify by deprecating non TLS
>     connections. I
>     >     have submitted the case to all possible lists in the past,
>     never got a
>     >     clear answer and was each time redirected to another list (ccing
>     >     webappsec but as a whole I think that's a webapp matter, so
>     please don't
>     >     state only that "downgrading a secure connection to an
>     insecure one is
>     >     insecure").
>     >
>     >     The case described below is simple:
>     >
>     >     1- https page loading the code, the code establishes ws + the Tor
>     >     protocol to "someone" (who can be a MITM or whatever, we don't
>     care as
>     >     explained below)
>     >
>     >     2- http page loading the code, the code establishes ws + the Tor
>     >     protocol
>     >
>     >     3- https page loading the code, the code establishes wss + the Tor
>     >     protocol
>     >
>     >     4- https page loading the code, the code establishes normal wss
>     >     connections
>     >
>     >     3 fails because the WS servers have self-signed certificates.
>     >
>     >     What is insecure between 1 and 2? Obviously this is 2, because
>     loading
>     >     the code via http.
>     >
>     >     Even more, 1 is more secure than 4, because the Tor protocol
>     is more
>     >     secure than TLS.
>     >
>     >     It's already a reality that projects are using something like
>     1 and will
>     >     continue to build systems on the same principles (one can't
>     argue that
>     >     such systems are unsecure or unlikely to happen, that's not
>     true, see
>     >     the Flashproxy project too).
>     >
>     >     But 1 fails too, because ws is not allowed inside a https
>     page, so we
>     >     must use 2, which is insecure and 2 might not work any longer
>     later.
>     >
>     >     Service Workers are doing about the same, https must be used,
>     as far as
>     >     I understand Service Workers can run any browser instance in
>     background
>     >     even if the spec seems to focus more on the offline aspects, so I
>     >     suppose that having 1 inside a (background) Service Worker
>     will fail
>     >     too.
>     >
>     >     Now we have the "new" "progressive Web Apps" which
>     surprisingly present
>     >     as a revolution the possibility to have a web app look like a
>     native app
>     >     while it can be done on iOS since the begining, same thing for
>     some
>     >     offline caching features that were possible before, but this
>     indeed
>     >     brings new things, hopefully we can have one day something
>     like all the
>     >     cordova features inside browsers + background/headless browser
>     >     instances.
>     >
>     >     So we are talking about web apps here, not about a web page
>     loading
>     >     plenty of http/https stuff, web apps that can be used as
>     >     independant/native apps or nodes to relay traffic and
>     therefore discuss
>     >     with some entities that can't be tied to a domain and can only use
>     >     self-signed certificates (like WebRTC peers, why do we have a
>     security
>     >     exception here allowing something for WebRTC and not for this
>     case?).
>     >
>     >     Then 1 must be possible with WS and Service Workers, because
>     there are
>     >     no reasons why it should not be allowed and this will happen
>     in the
>     >     future under different forms (see the link below), that's not
>     illogical,
>     >     if you use wss then you expect it to work as such (ie fail with
>     >     self-signed certificates for example), if you use ws (what
>     terrible
>     >     things can happen with ws exactly? ws can't access the DOM or
>     whatever)
>     >     then you are on your own and should better know what you are
>     doing,
>     >     that's not a reason to force you to use much more insecure 2.
>     >
>     >     Such apps can be loaded while navigating on a web site,
>     entirely (ie the
>     >     web site is the app), or for more wide distribution from
>     different sites
>     >     than the original app site via an iframe (very ugly way) or
>     extracted as
>     >     a component (cool way, does not seem to be foreseen by
>     anybody) with
>     >     user prompt/validation ("do you want to install application X?")
>     >     possibly running in background when needed in a sandboxed
>     context with
>     >     service workers.
>     >
>     >     Le 25/11/2015 17:43, Aymeric Vitte a écrit :
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > Le 20/11/2015 12:35, Richard Barnes a écrit :
>     >     >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Hanno Böck
>     <hanno@hboeck.de <mailto:hanno@hboeck.de>
>     >     <mailto:hanno@hboeck.de <mailto:hanno@hboeck.de>>> wrote:
>     >     >>
>     >     >>>> It's amazing how the same wrong arguments get repeated
>     again and
>     >     >>>> again...
>     >     >>>>
>     >     >> +1000
>     >     >>
>     >     >> All of these points have been raised and rebutted several
>     times.  My
>     >     >> favorite reference is:
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >   
>      https://konklone.com/post/were-deprecating-http-and-its-going-to-be-okay
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >
>     >     > You might not break the current internet but its future.
>     >     >
>     >     > Example: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=917829
>     >     >
>     >     > How do you intend to solve this? ie the case of an entity
>     that just
>     >     > cannot have valid certificates and/or implements a secure
>     protocol on
>     >     > top of an insecure one (ws here for Peersm project, the other
>     >     party can
>     >     > be by design a "MITM" but we completely don't care per the
>     secure
>     >     > protocol used, the MITM will not know what happens next)?
>     >     >
>     >     > Like WebRTC too, but there is an exception for that one,
>     self-signed
>     >     > certificates are (by some luck) accepted.
>     >     >
>     >     > It's obvious that browsers will be used for new services
>     involving
>     >     those
>     >     > mechanisms in the future, like P2P systems as sketched here:
>     >     >
>     >   
>      https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2015-November/015680.html
>     >     >
>     >
>     >     --
>     >     Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
>     >     Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
>     >     Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist:
>     >     http://torrent-live.org
>     >     Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
>     >     torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
>     >     node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
>     >     GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
>     >
> 
>     --
>     Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
>     Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
>     Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist:
>     http://torrent-live.org
>     Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
>     torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
>     node-Tor <https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live node-Tor> :
>     https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
>     GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
> 
> 

-- 
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms

Received on Monday, 30 November 2015 22:53:34 UTC