HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
portswigger.net
HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
#2> If we want a secure web, HTTP/1.1 must die.
Yes, the corporations and insitutions and their economic transactions must be the highest and only priority. I hear that a lot from commercial people with commercial blinders on.
They simply cannot see beyond their context and realize the web, http/1.1 is used by human people that don't have the same use cases or incredibly stringent identity verification needs. Human use cases don't matter to them because they are not profitable.
Also, this "attack" only works on commercial style complex CDN setups. It wouldn't effect human hosted webservers at all. So yeah, commercial companies, abandon HTTP, go to your HTTP/3 with all it's UDP only and CA TLS only and no self signing and no clear text. And leave the actual web on HTTP/1.1 HTTP+HTTPS alone.
Re: HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
#3I dont know, arguing that http/2 is safer overall is a... bold claim. It is sufficiently complex that there is no standard implementation in the Python standard library, and even third party library support is all over the place. requests doesn't support it; httpx has experimental, partial, pre-1.0 support. Python http/2 servers are virtually unavailable at all. And it's not just Python - I remember battling memory leaks, catastrophic deadlocks, and more in the grpc-go implementation of http/2, in its early days.
HTTP 1.1 connection reuse is indeed more subtle than it first appears. But http/2 is so hard to get right.
Re: HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
#4I dont know, arguing that http/2 is safer overall is a... bold claim. It is sufficiently complex that there is no standard implementation in the Python standard library, and even third party library support is all over the place. requests doesn't support it; httpx has experimental, partial, pre-1.0 support. Python http/2 servers are virtually unavailable at all . And it's not just Python - I remember battling memory…
Not sure about servers, but we had http/2 clients in java for a very long time.
Re: HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
#5> If we want a secure web, HTTP/1.1 must die. Yes, the corporations and insitutions and their economic transactions must be the highest and only priority. I hear that a lot from commercial people with commercial blinders on. They simply cannot see beyond their context and realize the web, http/1.1 is used by human people that don't have the same use cases or incredibly stringent identity verification needs. Human use…
> Also, this "attack" only works on commercial style complex CDN setups. It wouldn't effect human hosted webservers at all.
All you need is a faulty caching proxy in front of your PHP server. Or maybe that nice anti-bot protection layer.
It really, really is easy to get bitten by this.
Re: HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
#6I dont know, arguing that http/2 is safer overall is a... bold claim. It is sufficiently complex that there is no standard implementation in the Python standard library, and even third party library support is all over the place. requests doesn't support it; httpx has experimental, partial, pre-1.0 support. Python http/2 servers are virtually unavailable at all . And it's not just Python - I remember battling memory…
An HTTP/2 client is pretty easy to implement. Built-in framing automatically improves a lot of complexity, and if you don't need multiple streams, you can simplify the overall state machine.
Perhaps something like "HTTP/2-Lite" profile is in order? A minimal profile with just 1 connection, no compression, and so on.
Re: HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
#7> If we want a secure web, HTTP/1.1 must die. Yes, the corporations and insitutions and their economic transactions must be the highest and only priority. I hear that a lot from commercial people with commercial blinders on. They simply cannot see beyond their context and realize the web, http/1.1 is used by human people that don't have the same use cases or incredibly stringent identity verification needs. Human use…
The author is only arguing against HTTP/1.1 for use between proxies and backends. Explicitly so:
> Note that disabling HTTP/1 between the browser and the front-end is not required
Re: HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
#8I dont know, arguing that http/2 is safer overall is a... bold claim. It is sufficiently complex that there is no standard implementation in the Python standard library, and even third party library support is all over the place. requests doesn't support it; httpx has experimental, partial, pre-1.0 support. Python http/2 servers are virtually unavailable at all . And it's not just Python - I remember battling memory…
An HTTP/2 client is pretty easy to implement. Built-in framing automatically improves a lot of complexity, and if you don't need multiple streams, you can simplify the overall state machine. Perhaps something like "HTTP/2-Lite" profile is in order? A minimal profile with just 1 connection, no compression, and so on.
Isn't the original post about servers? A minimal client doesn't help with server security.
I would endorse your idea, though, speaking more broadly! That does sound useful.
Re: HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
#9Discussed a few weeks ago: https://http1mustdie.com/ , https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=http1mustdie.com
Re: HTTP/1.1 must die: the desync endgame
#10> If we want a secure web, HTTP/1.1 must die. Yes, the corporations and insitutions and their economic transactions must be the highest and only priority. I hear that a lot from commercial people with commercial blinders on. They simply cannot see beyond their context and realize the web, http/1.1 is used by human people that don't have the same use cases or incredibly stringent identity verification needs. Human use…
Yes!
Let's get real, online security is mostly a commercial thing. Why do you think Google pushed so hard for HTTPS? Do you really think it is to protect your political opinions? No one cares about them, but a lot of people care about your credit card.
That's something I disagree with the people who made Gemini, a "small web" protocol for people who want to escape the modern web with its ads, tracking and bloat. They made TLS a requirement. Personally, I would have banned encryption. There is a cost, but it is a good way to keep commercial activity out.
I am not saying that the commercial web is bad, it may be the best thing that happened in the 21th century so far, but if you want to escape from it for a bit, I'd say plain HTTP is the way to go.
Note: of course if you need encryption and security in general for non commercial reason, use it, and be glad for the commercial web for helping you with that.