Re: FireFox re-using HTTP2 connection to a wrong IP address & MITM attacks.
Daniel Stenberg <[email protected]> Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:08:45 +0200 (CEST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mozilla.devel.netlib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, [email protected] wrote: >> They both have a cert that covers both hosts and they both share at least >> one IP address. And they speak HTTP/2, so in the rare occasion that this >> would be a wrong assumption the server can return 421. > > Excellent, then please make it to behave exactly the same way with IPv4 only > addresses. Why FF not following the same logic if all IP's are strictly > IPv4 ? It does. Or perhaps I should say it should, if you indeed can reproduce a scenario where it doesn't. IP version is not relevant for this context. IP address overlap is. > Also, let's add to RFC then that all servers must reply with 421 for domains > that are not served as FireFox may decide to contact the server regardless > of IP addresses returned by DNS. Next step will be enforcing the whole world > to implement it. A) 421 is already in the RFC. B) It is not at all "regardless of IP address" since, again, both hosts share IP address(es). > You can't say that correct functionality of host_2 depends of what 3rd party > (administrator of host_1) configured on his server ? If the hosts indeed are that different as your explained scenario, and handled by differenent entities, why do they share cert and IP addresses? But more importantly: why do you think responding with a 421 when this happens is that wrong? Quating section 9.1.1 from RFC 7540: A server that does not wish clients to reuse connections can indicate that it is not authoritative for a request by sending a 421 (Misdirected Request) status code in response to the request (see Section 9.1.2). Surely a compliant HTTP/2 server responds this and then the problem is sorted? > And if you are right and this behaviour is on compliance with RFC, then why > FF is the ONLY browser behaving that way ? Apart from the mere fact that HTTP/2 is still a fairly new protocol, Firefox is leading the path in many ways when it comes to HTTP/2 implementations so there's no surprise that you'll see some behaviors like this in Firefox first. I think there are reasons to expect others to act similarly in the future. -- / daniel.haxx.se