Changeset 549 for draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties.txt
- Timestamp:
- 09/03/09 11:13:57 (14 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties.txt
r220 r549 5 5 Internet-Draft VPN Consortium 6 6 Intended status: Informational A. Melnikov 7 Expires: August 25, 2008Isode Ltd.8 February 22,20087 Expires: January 2, 2009 Isode Ltd. 8 July 2008 9 9 10 10 11 11 Security Requirements for HTTP 12 draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-0112 draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-latest 13 13 14 14 Status of this Memo 15 15 16 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 17 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 18 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 19 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 16 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 17 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material 18 from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly 19 available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the 20 copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF 21 Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the 22 IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from 23 the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this 24 document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and 25 derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards 26 Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to 27 translate it into languages other than English. 20 28 21 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering … … 35 43 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 36 44 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2008.45 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2009. 38 46 39 47 Copyright Notice 40 48 41 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 49 Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 52 53 54 55 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 1] 56 57 58 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP July 2008 59 60 61 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 62 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of 63 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 64 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 65 and restrictions with respect to this document. 42 66 43 67 Abstract … … 50 74 51 75 52 53 54 55 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 1]56 57 58 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP February 200859 60 61 76 Table of Contents 62 77 … … 64 79 2. Existing HTTP Security Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 80 2.1. Forms And Cookies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 2.2. HTTP Access Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 2.2. HTTP Access Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 82 2.2.1. Basic Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 83 2.2.2. Digest Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 2.2.3. Other Access Authentication Schemes . . . . . . . . . 6 70 2.3. Centrally-Issued Tickets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 2.4. Web Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 2.5. Transport Layer Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 3. Revisions To HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 77 Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 84 2.2.3. Authentication Using Certificates in TLS . . . . . . . 6 85 2.2.4. Other Access Authentication Schemes . . . . . . . . . 6 86 2.3. Centrally-Issued Tickets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 87 2.4. Web Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 88 2.5. Transport Layer Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 89 3. Revisions To HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 90 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 91 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 92 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 93 Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 94 B.1. Changes between draft-sayre-http-security-variance-00 79 and draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-00 . . . . . 9 80 B.2. Changes between -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 81 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 82 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 2] 113 114 115 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP February 2008 95 and draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-00 . . . . . 10 96 B.2. Changes between -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 97 B.3. Changes between -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 98 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 2] 113 114 115 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP July 2008 116 116 117 117 … … 167 167 168 168 169 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008[Page 3]170 171 172 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP February 2008169 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 3] 170 171 172 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP July 2008 173 173 174 174 … … 193 193 (credentials are not differentiated in the protocol). 194 194 195 HTML forms provide a facility for sites to indicate that a password 196 should never be pre-populated. [[ More needed here on autocomplete ]] 195 Many Web browsers have an auto-complete feature that stores a user's 196 information and pre-populates fields in forms. This is considered to 197 be a convenience mechanism, and convenience mechanisms often have 198 negative security properties. The security concerns with auto- 199 completion are particularly poignant for web browsers that reside on 200 computers with multiple users. HTML forms provide a facility for 201 sites to indicate that a field, such as a password, should never be 202 pre-populated. However, it is clear that some form creators do not 203 use this facility when they should. 197 204 198 205 The cookies that result from a successful form submission make it … … 213 220 have no use. 214 221 222 223 224 225 226 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 4] 227 228 229 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP July 2008 230 231 215 232 2.2. HTTP Access Authentication 216 233 … … 221 238 degree of support for one or both is available in many 222 239 implementations. Neither scheme provides presentation control, 223 224 225 226 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 4]227 228 229 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP February 2008230 231 232 240 logout capabilities, or interoperable internationalization. 233 241 … … 270 278 implementations do not implement the mode that provides full message 271 279 integrity. Perhaps one reason is that implementation experience has 280 281 282 283 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 5] 284 285 286 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP July 2008 287 288 272 289 shown that in some cases, especially those involving large requests 273 290 or responses such as streams, the message integrity mode is … … 278 295 279 296 Digest is extremely susceptible to offline dictionary attacks, making 280 281 282 283 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 5]284 285 286 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP February 2008287 288 289 297 it practical for attackers to perform a namespace walk consisting of 290 a few million passwords [[ CITATION NEEDED ]].298 a few million passwords for most users. 291 299 292 300 Many of the most widely-deployed HTTP/1.1 clients are not compliant … … 305 313 characters outside of the ISO 8859-1 repertoire. 306 314 307 2.2.3. Other Access Authentication Schemes 315 2.2.3. Authentication Using Certificates in TLS 316 317 Running HTTP over TLS provides authentication of the HTTP server to 318 the client. HTTP over TLS can also provides authentication of the 319 client to the server using certificates. Although forms are a much 320 more common way to authenticate users to HTTP servers, TLS client 321 certificates are widely used in some environments. The public key 322 infrastructure (PKI) used to validate certificates in TLS can be 323 rooted in public trust anchors or can be based on local trust 324 anchors. 325 326 2.2.4. Other Access Authentication Schemes 308 327 309 328 There are many niche schemes that make use of the HTTP Authentication … … 311 330 transport layer connections. 312 331 313 2.2.3.1. Negotiate (GSS-API) Authentication 314 315 [[ A discussion about "SPNEGO-based Kerberos and NTLM HTTP 316 Authentication in Microsoft Windows" [RFC4559] goes here. ]] 332 2.2.4.1. Negotiate (GSS-API) Authentication 333 334 Microsoft has designed an HTTP authentication mechanism that utilizes 335 SPNEGO [RFC4178] GSSAPI [RFC4559]. In Microsoft's implementation, 336 SPNEGO allows selection between Kerberos and NTLM (Microsoft NT Lan 337 338 339 340 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 6] 341 342 343 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP July 2008 344 345 346 Manager protocols). 347 348 In Kerberos, clients and servers rely on a trusted third-party 349 authentication service which maintains its own authentication 350 database. Kerberos is typically used with shared secret key 351 cryptography, but extensions for use of other authentication 352 mechnanisms such as PKIX certificates and two-factor tokens are also 353 common. Kerberos was designed to work under the assumption that 354 packets traveling along the network can be read, modified, and 355 inserted at will. 356 357 Unlike Digest, Negotiate authentication can take multiple round trips 358 (client sending authentication data in Authorization, server sending 359 authentication data in WWW-Authenticate) to complete. 360 361 Kerberos authentication is generally more secure than Digest. 362 However the requirement for having a separate network authentication 363 service might be a barrier to deployment. 317 364 318 365 2.3. Centrally-Issued Tickets … … 335 382 in XML-based protocols, using HTTP as a substitute for TCP. Like the 336 383 amalgam of HTTP technologies mentioned above, the XML-based protocols 337 338 339 340 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 6]341 342 343 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP February 2008344 345 346 384 are defined by an ever-changing combination of standard and vendor- 347 385 produced specifications, some of which may be obsoleted at any time … … 355 393 to differentiate it from REST. ]] 356 394 395 396 397 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 7] 398 399 400 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP July 2008 401 402 357 403 2.5. Transport Layer Security 358 404 359 [[ A discussion of HTTP over TLS needs to be added here. ]] 360 361 [[ Discussion of connection confidentiality should be separate from 362 the discussion of access authentication based on mutual 363 authentication with certificates in TLS. ]] 405 In addition to using TLS for client and/or server authentication, it 406 is also very commonly used to protect the confidentiality and 407 integrity of the HTTP session. For instance, both HTTP Basic 408 authentication and Cookies are often protected against snooping by 409 TLS. 410 411 It should be noted that, in that case, TLS does not protect against a 412 breach of the credential store at the server or against a keylogger 413 or phishing interface at the client. TLS does not change the fact 414 that Basic Authentication passwords are reusable and does not address 415 that weakness. 364 416 365 417 … … 393 445 <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/phishing.pdf>. 394 446 395 396 397 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 7]398 399 400 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP February 2008401 402 403 447 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 404 448 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 405 449 406 450 [RFC2109] Kristol, D. and L. Montulli, "HTTP State Management 451 452 453 454 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 8] 455 456 457 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP July 2008 458 459 407 460 Mechanism", RFC 2109, February 1997. 408 461 … … 434 487 RFC 3986, January 2005. 435 488 489 [RFC4178] Zhu, L., Leach, P., Jaganathan, K., and W. Ingersoll, "The 490 Simple and Protected Generic Security Service Application 491 Program Interface (GSS-API) Negotiation Mechanism", 492 RFC 4178, October 2005. 493 436 494 [RFC4559] Jaganathan, K., Zhu, L., and J. Brezak, "SPNEGO-based 437 495 Kerberos and NTLM HTTP Authentication in Microsoft … … 451 509 452 510 453 454 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 8] 455 456 457 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP February 2008 511 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 9] 512 513 514 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP July 2008 458 515 459 516 … … 509 566 510 567 511 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 9]512 513 514 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP February 2008568 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 10] 569 570 571 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP July 2008 515 572 516 573 … … 530 587 In A, added the WG. 531 588 589 B.3. Changes between -01 and -02 590 591 In section 2.1, added more to the paragraph on auto-completion of 592 HTML forms. 593 594 Added the section on TLS for authentication. 595 596 Filled in section 2.5. 597 532 598 533 599 Authors' Addresses … … 557 623 558 624 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 10] 569 570 571 Internet-Draft Security Requirements for HTTP February 2008 572 573 574 Full Copyright Statement 575 576 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 577 578 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 579 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 580 retain all their rights. 581 582 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 583 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 584 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 585 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 586 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 587 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 588 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 589 590 591 Intellectual Property 592 593 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 594 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 595 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 596 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 597 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 598 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 599 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 600 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 601 602 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 603 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 604 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 605 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 606 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 607 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 608 609 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 610 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 611 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 612 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 613 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 614 615 616 Acknowledgment 617 618 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 619 Administrative Support Activity (IASA). 620 621 622 623 624 625 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 11] 626 627 625 Hoffman & Melnikov Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 11] 626 627
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.