On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote: > I wish you could consider the nonce handshake proposal and report whether it addresses your concerns. Instead, you are just repeating your own suggestion. I listened to you and gave you feedback. I even made a proposal that tries to address the requirements you have identified. Can you please do me the same courtesy? > > Would it be helpful if I spelled out the nonce proposal in more detail and explained how it fixes security vulnerabilities in the current handshake, while also making it easier to integrate with existing servers? I admit both my explanation and Ian's later summary were somewhat roughly sketched out. Yes, I admit it'd be a bit helpful if the nonce proposal was little more concrete. I'm still not exactly clear what the security risks are (I know you tried to clarify a bit, but it didn't really hit what you were talking about) - to me, expecting a hard-code byte sequence just to do the initialization doesn't seem to add any real security benefits. I'm not quite sure what a nonce would add, but if I saw it at a slightly more concrete level, perhaps that'd trip the light bulb. I'm for pretty much anything which lets any conformant HTTP/1.1 server process the upgrade request (or a HTTP/1.1 client issue it!) and then hand-off to a new protocol upon completion of the HTTP/1.1 response. -- justin
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.