Feeds

Mandatory HTTP 2.0 encryption proposal sparks hot debate

Just how robust is transport layer security anyway?

High performance access to file storage

Most Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) debates pass unnoticed, because they're very dry and detailed. However, a suggestion that the HTTP 2.0 specification might mandate encryption – in a post-Snowden world – is too tasty an idea to go under the radar.

The suggestion sparking the debate came from HTTPbis chair, Mark Nottingham, who put forward a discussion summary in which he suggested some kind of consensus is emerging that HTTP 2.0 should favour https:// to protect users (to some degree) against traffic snooping: “HTTP/2 to only be used with https:// URIs on the "open" Internet. http:// URIs would continue to use HTTP/1 (and of course it would still be possible for older HTTP/1 clients to still interoperate with https:// URIs)”, Nottingham wrote on the IETF HTTP working group list.

Other options he reported from the IETF Vancouver meeting were to use opportunistic encryption for http:// URIs without authenticating the server; or to add server authentication to the opportunistic encryption suggestion.

It's regrettable that the story has turned into a “W3C wants to encrypt HTTP 2.0 by default”, because what's more interesting is the strength of feeling that accompanies the debate.

Nottingham's e-mail sparked two things: headlines giving the “SSL-only” idea a stronger status than it has; and a strong debate on the list about the merits of the proposal.

Since the ongoing debate is a clear indication that Nottingham's proposal wasn't any kind of a consensus position, but rather a summary of discussions, The Register would like to focus on how the list seems to see the pros and cons of the idea.

Would “mandatory” SSL make the Internet more secure?

Obviously the starting point is that if it were adopted – that is, HTTP 2.0 sites default to secure sockets layer (SSL) using transport layer security (TLS) as the mechanism, it would only impact HTTP 2.0 servers communicating with HTTP 2.0 browsers. Someone with an older browser landing on an http:// page sees no change.

Microsoft went on the record in the list as preferring to encourage TLS in HTTP 2.0 without making it mandatory; while the Chromium project takes the opposite view, and is planning on supporting HTTP 2.0 only over a secure channel.

The debate highlights the deep concerns those in the know – that is, those actually contributing to IETF discussions – have about the security of TLS, particularly in light of the Snowden-driven belief that man-in-the-middle attacks are widespread.

However, making TLS more secure lives off in a different working group. Clearly, if a “secure channel” implementation were mandated for HTTP 2.0, it can only use those security mechanisms that are available to it.

What might it break?

Once concern cited by the participants in the discussion is simply that a more restrictive specification would inhibit adoption of HTTP 2.0. Microsoft's Rob Trace summed it up: “we should strongly encourage the use of TLS with HTTP, but not at the expense of creating a standard that is as broadly applicable as HTTP 1.1”.

In other words, there's no point in having a “more secure” standard if it ends up being one that nobody uses.

Perhaps thornier is what the proposal would do between browser and server, in the proxies and caches that ISPs use to help manage their traffic. An ISP can only cache a popular story from The Register if the content is in the clear. Encryption makes every piece of content look like unique content.

This one's got a long way to run … ®

High performance access to file storage

More from The Register

next story
Seagate brings out 6TB HDD, did not need NO STEENKIN' SHINGLES
Or helium filling either, according to reports
European Court of Justice rips up Data Retention Directive
Rules 'interfering' measure to be 'invalid'
Dropbox defends fantastically badly timed Condoleezza Rice appointment
'Nothing is going to change with Dr. Rice's appointment,' file sharer promises
Cisco reps flog Whiptail's Invicta arrays against EMC and Pure
Storage reseller report reveals who's selling what
Bored with trading oil and gold? Why not flog some CLOUD servers?
Chicago Mercantile Exchange plans cloud spot exchange
Just what could be inside Dropbox's new 'Home For Life'?
Biz apps, messaging, photos, email, more storage – sorry, did you think there would be cake?
IT bods: How long does it take YOU to train up on new tech?
I'll leave my arrays to do the hard work, if you don't mind
prev story

Whitepapers

Mainstay ROI - Does application security pay?
In this whitepaper learn how you and your enterprise might benefit from better software security.
Five 3D headsets to be won!
We were so impressed by the Durovis Dive headset we’ve asked the company to give some away to Reg readers.
3 Big data security analytics techniques
Applying these Big Data security analytics techniques can help you make your business safer by detecting attacks early, before significant damage is done.
The benefits of software based PBX
Why you should break free from your proprietary PBX and how to leverage your existing server hardware.
Mobile application security study
Download this report to see the alarming realities regarding the sheer number of applications vulnerable to attack, as well as the most common and easily addressable vulnerability errors.