ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Review of: Opportunistic Security -03 preview for comment

2014-08-16 20:06:25
I am uncomfortable with the MUST.

fallback to cleartext is often helpful (web caching and performance proxying of 
graphics/noncritical items), useful for debugging, and does not inadvertently 
prevent communication when the security apparatus inevitably screws up.

I view fallback to cleartext as a feature, not a bug. (I often edit https to 
http in urls - if the server wants to serve https, fine, but I am not going to 
demand it - and dnssec is just another point of failure.)

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: Nico Williams <nico(_at_)cryptonector(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, 17 August 2014 6:16:08 AM
To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie; 
fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; 
presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com; paul(_at_)nohats(_dot_)ca; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Review of:  Opportunistic Security -03 preview for comment

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 02:21:18AM +0000, 
l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
I'd like to see this draft discuss http early on - redirecting any http
request to https (via 301/302/303/307 redirection) for login pages etc.
is transparent, opportunistic, and easy to do, and a widespread example
that gets the opportunistic idea across; I've explained this to Stephen
previously.

OS should be applied to HTTP, but there may be enough to discuss there
that we'd never finish with this I-D if we had to deal with it now.

But yes, HTTP w/ OS is something we'll definitely want.  At the most
basic level if a server advertises TLSA RRs in DNS, verifiable with
DNSSEC.  Then HTTP clients that support OS should (MUST!) use HTTPS for
all HTTP requests to such a server.

The tricky issue is: how can users and hypermedia authors denote "no
fallback to cleartext" -- adding a new URI scheme is the first thought
that comes to mind about that, but it seems likely not to be that
simple.  Admittedly a "no fallback to cleartext" indication may prove
unnecessary: eventually support for unauthenticated encryption may reach
a large enough proportion of servers that clients can begin disabling
fallback to cleartext.  But you see my concern: it's too soon to tell
whether we'll need to do anything about indicating no fallbackto
cleartext.

Nico
--


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>