HTTPbis Working Group                                      M. Nottingham
Intended status: Experimental                                 M. Thomson
Expires: December 14, 2014                                       Mozilla June 12, 18, 2015                                           Mozilla
                                                       December 15, 2014

                    Opportunistic Encryption Security for HTTP URIs


   This document describes how "http" URIs can be accessed using
   Transport Layer Security (TLS) to mitigate pervasive monitoring

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 14, 2014. June 18, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Goals and Non-Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2   3
     1.2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Using HTTP URIs over TLS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Server Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3   4
   4.  Interaction with "https" URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Requiring Use of TLS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4   5
     5.1.  The HTTP-TLS Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Security Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Downgrade Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.4.  Confusion Regarding Request Scheme  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7   8
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7   8
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8   9
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8   9

1.  Introduction

   This document describes a use of HTTP Alternative Services
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc] to decouple the URI scheme from the use
   and configuration of underlying encryption, allowing a "http" URI to
   be accessed using TLS [RFC5246] opportunistically.

   Currently, "https" URIs requires require acquiring and configuring a valid
   certificate, which means that some deployments find supporting TLS
   difficult.  Therefore, this document describes a usage model whereby
   sites can serve "http" URIs over TLS without being required to
   support strong server authentication.

   Opportunistic Security [I-D.dukhovni-opportunistic-security] does not
   provide the same guarantees as using TLS with "https" URIs; it is
   vulnerable to active attacks, and does not change the security
   context of the connection.  Normally, users will not be able to tell
   that it is in use (i.e., there will be no "lock icon").

   By its nature, this technique is vulnerable to active attacks.  A
   mechanism for limiting the potential for active attacks partially mitigating them is described in Section 5.  This provides clients with additional
   protection against them for a period after successfully connecting to
   a server using TLS.  This
   It does not offer the same level of protection as afforded to "https"
   URIs, but increases the likelihood that an active attack be detected.

1.1.  Goals and Non-Goals

   The immediate goal is to make the use of HTTP more robust in the face
   of pervasive passive monitoring [RFC7258].

   A secondary goal is to limit the potential for active attacks.  It is
   not intended to offer the same level of protection as afforded to
   "https" URIs, but instead to increase the likelihood that an active
   attack can be detected.

   A final (but significant) goal is to provide for ease of
   implementation, deployment and operation.  This mechanism should have
   a minimal impact upon performance, and should not require extensive
   administrative effort to configure.

1.2.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Using HTTP URIs over TLS

   An origin server that supports the resolution of HTTP "http" URIs can
   indicate support for this specification by providing an alternative
   service advertisement [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc] for a protocol
   identifier that uses TLS, such as "h2" [I-D.ietf-httpbis-http2].

   A client that receives such an advertisement MAY direct make future requests
   intended for the associated origin ([RFC6454]) to the identified
   service (as specified by [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc]).

   A client that places the importance of protection against passive protections
   attacks over performance might choose to withold withhold requests until an
   encrypted connection is available.  However, if such a connection
   cannot be successfully established, the client MAY resume its use of
   the cleartext connection.

   A client can also explicitly probe for an alternative service
   advertisement by sending a request that bears little or no sensitive
   information, such as one with the OPTIONS method.  Clients  Likewise, clients
   expired existing alternative services information could make such a similar
   request before they expire, in parallel to an attempt to contact an alternative service, to order minimize the delays that might
   be incurred by failing to contact the
   alternative service. incurred.

3.  Server Authentication

   There are no existing expectations with respect to

   By their nature, "http" URIs do not require cryptographically strong
   server authentication when it comes to resolving HTTP authentication; that is only implied by "https" URIs.
   Establishing it, as described in [RFC2818],
   Furthermore, doing so (as per [RFC2818]) creates a number of
   operational challenges.  For these reasons, server authentication is
   not mandatory for HTTP "http" URIs when using the mechanism described in
   this specification.

   When connecting to an alternative service for an "http" URI, clients
   are not required to perform the server authentication procedure
   described in Section 3.1 of [RFC2818].  The server certificate, if
   one is proffered by the alternative service, is not necessarily
   checked for validity, expiration, issuance by a trusted certificate
   authority or matched against the name in the URI.  Therefore, the
   alternative service MAY provide any certificate, or even select TLS
   cipher suites that do not include authentication.

   A client MAY perform additional checks on the certificate that it is offered (if certificate if
   the server does not select an unauthenticated TLS cipher
   suite).  For instance, a client suite.  This
   document doesn't define any such checks, though clients could examine the certificate to see
   if it has changed over time.

   In order to retain the authority properties of "http" URIs, and as be
   configured with a policy that defines what is acceptable.

   As stipulated by [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc], clients MUST NOT use
   alternative services that identify with a host other than that of the
   origin, origin's, unless the
   alternative service itself is strongly authenticated (as the origin's host).  This is not currently possible
   host); for "http" URIs on cleartext transports. example, using TLS with a certificate that validates as
   per [RFC2818].

4.  Interaction with "https" URIs


   When using alternative service that is discovered to support services, both "http" and "https" URIs might concurrently support "https" URIs,
   use the same connection, because HTTP/2 permits the
   sending of requests for multiple
   origins (see [RFC6454]) on the one
   connection.  Therefore, when using alternative services, both HTTP
   and HTTPS URIs might be sent on the same same connection.

   Since "https" URIs rely on server authentication.  Therefore, if authentication, a connection that
   is initially created for "http" URIs without authenticating the server,
   requests for "https" resources
   server cannot be sent over that connection used for "https" URIs until the server certificate
   is successfully authenticated.  Section 3.1 of [RFC2818] describes
   the basic mechanism, though the authentication considerations in
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc] could also apply.

   Connections that are established without any means of server
   authentication (for instance, the purely anonymous TLS cipher
   suites), cannot be used for "https" URIs.

5.  Requiring Use of TLS

   Editors' Note: this is a very rough take on an approach that would
   provide a limited form of protection against downgrade attack.  It's
   unclear at this point whether the additional effort (and modest
   operational cost) is worthwhile.

   The mechanism described in this specification is trival to mount an
   active attack against, for two reasons:

   o  A client that doesn't perform authentication an easy victim of
      server impersonation, through man-in-the-middle attacks.

   o  A client that is willing to use cleartext to resolve the resource
      will do so if access to any TLS-enabled alternative services is
      blocked at the network layer.

   Given that the primary goal of this specification is to prevent
   passive attacks, these are not critical failings (especially
   considering the alternative - HTTP over cleartext).  However, a
   modest form of protection against active attacks can be provided for
   clients on subsequent connections.

   When an alternative service is able to commit to providing service
   for a particular origin over TLS for a bounded period of time,
   clients can choose to rely upon its avilability, failing when it
   cannot be contacted.  Effectively, this makes the alternative service choice to use a
   secured protocol "sticky" in the client.

   One drawback with this approach is that clients need to strongly
   authenticate the alternative service to act upon such a commitment;
   otherwise, an attacker could create a persistent denial of service.

5.1.  The HTTP-TLS Header Field

   A alternative service can make this commitment by sending a "HTTP-
   TLS" header field:

   HTTP-TLS     = 1#parameter

   When it appears in a HTTP response from a strongly authenticated
   alternative service, this header field indicates that the
   availability of the origin through TLS-protected alternative services
   is "sticky", and that the client MUST NOT fall back to cleartext
   protocols while this information is considered fresh.

   For example:

   GET /index.html HTTP/1.1

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: text/html
   Cache-Control: 600
   Age: 30
   Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 16:20:09 GMT
   HTTP-TLS: ma=3600

   Note that the commitment is not bound to a particular alternative
   service; clients SHOULD use other alternative services that they
   become aware of, as long as the requirements regarding authentication
   and avoidance of cleartext protocols are met.

   When this

   This header field appears in creates a response, commitment from the origin [RFC6454] of
   the associated resource (in the example, "").  For
   the duration of the commitment, clients MUST SHOULD strongly authenticate
   the alternative service, as server for all subsequent requests made to that origin, though
   this creates some risks for clients Section 5.2.

   Authentication for HTTP over TLS is described in Section 3.1 of
   [RFC2818], noting the additional requirements in
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc].  The header field MUST be ignored if
   strong authentication fails.

   Persisted information expires after fails; otherwise, an attacker could create a
   persistent denial of service by falsifying a commitment.

   The commitment to use authenticated TLS persists for a period
   determined by the value of the "ma" parameter.  See Section 4.2.3 of
   [RFC7234] for details of determining response age.

   ma-parameter     = delta-seconds

   The commitment made by the "HTTP-TLS" header field applies only to
   the origin of the resource that generates the "HTTP-TLS" header
   field.  Requests for an origin that has a persisted, unexpired value
   for "HTTP-TLS" MUST fail if they cannot be made over an authenticated
   TLS connection.

   Note that the commitment is not bound to a particular alternative
   service.  Clients SHOULD use alternative services that they become
   aware of.  However, clients MUST NOT use an unauthenticated
   alternative service for an origin with this commitment.  Where there
   is an active commitment, clients MAY instead ignore advertisements
   for unsecured alternatives services.

5.2.  Operational Considerations

   To avoid situations where a persisted value of "HTTP-TLS" causes a
   client to be unable to contact a site, clients SHOULD limit the time
   that a value is persisted for a given origin.  A lower limit might be
   appropriate for initial observations of "HTTP-TLS"; the certainty
   that a site has set a correct value - and the corresponding limit on
   persistence - can increase as the value is seen more over time.

   Once a server has indicated that it will support authenticated TLS, a
   client MAY use key pinning [I-D.ietf-websec-key-pinning] or any other
   mechanism that would otherwise be restricted to use with HTTPS "https"
   URIs, provided that the mechanism can be restricted to a single HTTP

6.  Security Considerations

6.1.  Security Indicators

   User Agents MUST NOT provide any special security indicia when an
   "http" resource is acquired using TLS.  In particular, indicators
   that might suggest the same level of security as "https" MUST NOT be
   used (e.g., using a "lock device").

6.2.  Downgrade Attacks

   A downgrade attack against the negotiation for TLS is possible.  With
   the "HTTP-TLS" header field, this is limited to occasions where
   clients have no prior information (see Section 6.3), or when
   persisted commitments have expired.

   For example, because the "Alt-Svc" header field
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc] likely appears in an unauthenticated and
   unencrypted channel, it is subject to downgrade by network attackers.
   In its simplest form, an attacker that wants the connection to remain
   in the clear need only strip the "Alt-Svc" header field from

   As long as

   Downgrade attacks can be partially mitigated using the "HTTP-TLS"
   header field, because when it is used, a client is willing to use can avoid using
   cleartext TCP to contact a
   server, these attacks are possible.  The "HTTP-TLS" header field
   provides an imperfect mechanism for establishing a commitment.  The
   advantage is that supporting server.  However, this only works if
   when a previous connection is has been established where without an active
   attacker was not present.  A present; a continuously present active attacker can either
   prevent the client from ever using TLS, or offer a self-signed its own certificate.  This would prevent the
   client from ever seeing the "HTTP-TLS" header field, or if the header
   field is seen, from successfully validating and persisting it.

6.3.  Privacy Considerations

   Clients that persist state for origins can be tracked over time based
   on their use of this information.  Persisted information

   Cached alternative services can be
   cleared used to reduce track clients over time;
   e.g., using a user-specific hostname.  Clearing the cache reduces the
   ability of servers to track clients.  Clients clients; therefore clients MUST clear persisted
   cached alternative service information when clearing other origin-based origin-
   based state (i.e., cookies).

6.4.  Confusion Regarding Request Scheme

   Many existing HTTP/1.1 implementations use the presence or absence of
   TLS in the stack to determine whether requests are for "http" or
   "https" resources.  This is necessary in many cases because the most
   common form of an HTTP/1.1 request does not carry an explicit
   indication of the URI scheme.

   HTTP/1.1 MUST NOT be sent over HTTP/1.1 or earlier versions of the
   protocol.  Opportunistically secured HTTP requests MUST include an
   explicit scheme identifier.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

              Nottingham, M., McManus, P., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
              Alternative Services", draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-01 draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-05 (work
              in progress), April December 2014.

              Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol version 2", draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-12 draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16 (work in
              progress), April 2014.

              Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", draft-ietf-
              httpbis-p6-cache-26 (work in progress), February November 2014.

              Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, "Public Key Pinning
              Extension for HTTP", draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-13 draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-21
              (work in progress), May October 2014.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6454]  Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454, December

   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", RFC 7234, June

7.2.  Informative References

              Dukhovni, V., "Opportunistic Security: Some Protection
              Most of the Time", draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-
              security-06 (work in progress), November 2014.

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, May 2014.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Patrick McManus, Eliot Lear, Stephen Farrell, Guy Podjarny,
   Stephen Ludin, Erik Nygren, Paul Hoffman, Adam Langley, Eric Rescorla
   and Richard Barnes for their feedback and suggestions.

Authors' Addresses

   Mark Nottingham


   Martin Thomson