Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

lauren.vortex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

#31

Post by gojomo »

zachrose wrote: post #26
gojomo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web is long overdue for a method to specify an exact resource, by content-hash, from one-of-whatever-sources. Those sources can then be other less-secure protocols, even those unanticipated by the referrer, because the client got the necessary verifier via the secure-path.

I believe there's already a standard HTTP header for this: Content-MD5. Browsers definitely don't cache across origins by this though. If they did, would it be possible to create a malicious JavaScript file with the same MD5 as jQuery?

It would need to be done via the pointer-to-content (URL/URI), and an independently-calculated secure-hash, not just a header. (The 'ni' proposal might serve this role.[1])

You definitely wouldn't use MD5, as experts have been recommending against its use for content-security since about 1996.[2] (A practical full chosen-preimage attack hasn't yet been developed, but still, you'd design for security for the next few decades, which would mean a SHA256 or better.) The choice of a good hash would mean no one could practically create an alternate file with the same hash.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-10

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5#cite_note-30

Re: One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

#32

Post by quotemstr »

bbatsell wrote: post #30
quotemstr wrote: post #14

Er, actually reading the specification, it's about proxying http resources, not https ones. This proposal is strictly better than the transparent proxying that's common on the internet today. To distinguish between an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "https" URIs resources and an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "http" URIs resource, the draft proposes to register a new value in the Application Layer Protocol n…

HTTP/2 changes the meaning of the http:// scheme. All connections will now be TLS-encrypted. (Edit: Maybe not. See hobohacker below.) http:// means that the endpoint has not been verified using the CA system and is using a self-signed certificate (and is thus trivially vulnerable to a MITM should certificate keys not be checked out-of-band). The purpose is to provide confidentiality to the vast majority of traffic, e…

> http:// means that the endpoint has not been verified using the CA system and is using a self-signed certificate (and is thus trivially vulnerable to a MITM should certificate keys not be independently checked).

Right. I understand that. The lack of certificate verification for the http scheme means that ISPs can MITM HTTP traffic with or without this proposal, just like they can with HTTP/1.1.

So how does this proposal make things worse?

> new plans in Austin that charge an extra $30/month if you do NOT agree to them inspecting and data-mining all of your web browsing and selling it to advertisers

Really? That's a special kind of evil and should be illegal.

Re: One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

#33

Post by quotemstr »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #29
quotemstr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does it say that?

3.1.1 TLS Handshake with Proxy certificate When the user has given consent to the use of a proxy, the User-Agent SHOULD store this consent so that the user does not have to give consent for each new TLS connection involving the proxy. The consent SHOULD be limited to the specific access and MAY be limited to a single connection to that access or limited in time. How the consent information is stored is implementation…

The way I'm reading the sections you've quoted, the spec merely allows proxying of https ciphertext. Every router in the internet does that already. Bear in mind that in HTTP 2.0, all connections are TLS connections. The spec sections you've quoted just say that users should only have to consent once to their "http"-resource connections being proxied; they're not talking about "https" resources.

Re: One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

#34

Post by dijit »

nathancahill wrote: post #27
bachback wrote: post #17

SSL is such crap. time to make a better internet.

With blackjack and hookers?

he's not wrong about SSL being poor.. rather, the CA system is what I consider to be poor.

there was the idea of notaries that never took off, but that would be ideal imho.

Re: One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

#35

Post by Danieru »

zachrose wrote: post #26
gojomo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web is long overdue for a method to specify an exact resource, by content-hash, from one-of-whatever-sources. Those sources can then be other less-secure protocols, even those unanticipated by the referrer, because the client got the necessary verifier via the secure-path.

I believe there's already a standard HTTP header for this: Content-MD5. Browsers definitely don't cache across origins by this though. If they did, would it be possible to create a malicious JavaScript file with the same MD5 as jQuery?

Yes it would be possible because MD5 has been broken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5#Collision_vulnerabilities

Any file can be modified to result in a hash collision with a specific MD5. This makes is unsuitable for its stated purpose as a cryptographic hash.

The solution would be to use a newer and stronger hash like Keccak.

A solution similar to what you are thinking of is already used by Bittorrent's Distributed Hash Table to identify files.

Re: One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

#36

Post by natrius »

bbatsell wrote: post #30
quotemstr wrote: post #14

Er, actually reading the specification, it's about proxying http resources, not https ones. This proposal is strictly better than the transparent proxying that's common on the internet today. To distinguish between an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "https" URIs resources and an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "http" URIs resource, the draft proposes to register a new value in the Application Layer Protocol n…

HTTP/2 changes the meaning of the http:// scheme. All connections will now be TLS-encrypted. (Edit: Maybe not. See hobohacker below.) http:// means that the endpoint has not been verified using the CA system and is using a self-signed certificate (and is thus trivially vulnerable to a MITM should certificate keys not be checked out-of-band). The purpose is to provide confidentiality to the vast majority of traffic, e…

Can you elaborate on those AT&T plans?

Re: One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

#37

Post by hobohacker »

bbatsell wrote: post #30
quotemstr wrote: post #14

Er, actually reading the specification, it's about proxying http resources, not https ones. This proposal is strictly better than the transparent proxying that's common on the internet today. To distinguish between an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "https" URIs resources and an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "http" URIs resource, the draft proposes to register a new value in the Application Layer Protocol n…

HTTP/2 changes the meaning of the http:// scheme. All connections will now be TLS-encrypted. (Edit: Maybe not. See hobohacker below.) http:// means that the endpoint has not been verified using the CA system and is using a self-signed certificate (and is thus trivially vulnerable to a MITM should certificate keys not be checked out-of-band). The purpose is to provide confidentiality to the vast majority of traffic, e…

HTTP/2 does not change the meaning of http://. That's the opportunistic encryption proposal: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-.... For more information, you can see https://insouciant.org/tech/http-slash-2-considerations-and-....

Re: One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

#38

Post by MaulingMonkey »

atmosx wrote: post #28
wmf wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This proposal isn't intended for ISPs and should never be used on the public Internet.

Oh, my bad then. I miss-understood the proposal and it's implications. But since the protocol supports that, how can we be sure that ISPs won't use it?

Cynically, "we can't". Or "they already have better options".

Alternatively, outcry and blacklisting ISP proxies - just as we do with root cert abuse.

Re: One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

#39

Post by hobohacker »

gnoway wrote: post #6

There was another article on here a week or two ago effectively blasting the http/2.0 wg for doing stupid things. I think it was the "HTTP 308 incompetence expected" article. Now this. I'm beginning to wonder if I want anything to do with HTTP/2.0.

Perhaps you should look at the Hacker News comments on that thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249193. Notably, my comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249560 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249869. Basically, the author is wrong.

Re: One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Seen

#40

Post by hobohacker »

wmf wrote: post #21

This article ignores the context behind the proposal. Many companies, schools, and prisons are MITMing all SSL traffic today for a variety of liability reasons. Today those users get no notice that their Web browsing is being observed and censored. Trusted proxies are intended to give those users some notice that they're being MITMed. I agree that MITM proxies shouldn't be used on the public Internet and thus we shou…

As Patrick McManus says in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/...:

If someone can install a root cert onto your computer then you are already owned - there is no end to the other things they can do too. Call it a virus, call it an enterprise, but call it a day - you're owned and there is no in-charter policy this working group can enact to change the security level of that user for good or for bad..

The good news is not everyone is already owned and SSL helps those people today.

Post reply on HN