Subject: [websec] #4: Clarify that HSTS policy applies to entire host (all ports)

From: "websec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:11:21 -0000

#4: Clarify that HSTS policy applies to entire host (all ports)

 Clarify and make more explicit that HSTS policy applies to entire host
 (all ports).

 Also include security rationale, e.g. Secure-flagged cookie eavesdropping,
 XSS vulns, etc.

-- 
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
 Reporter:  jeff.hodges@…                  |       Owner:  =JeffH
     Type:  defect                         |      Status:  new   
 Priority:  major                          |   Milestone:        
Component:  strict-transport-sec           |     Version:        
 Severity:  Active WG Document             |    Keywords:        
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/4>
websec <http://tools.ietf.org/websec/>

---

From: "websec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:12:42 -0000

Comment(by jeff.hodges@…):

 add reference to "Beware Finer-grained Origins"
 <http://www.adambarth.com/papers/2008/jackson-barth-b.pdf>

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/4#comment:1>
websec <http://tools.ietf.org/websec/>

---

From: "websec issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:20:58 -0000

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg00041.html

 Subject: [websec] HSTS -- what about ports?
 From: Daniel Veditz <[email-masked]>
 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 22:29:48 -0800
 To: [email-masked]

 The HSTS spec needs to be more clear about how to handle multiple
 servers running on different ports on the same host. I think, by
 referring to host name matching only, that the intent of the spec is
 that a server running on any port can set HSTS behavior for every
 other port on that host. If this is correct it might be clearer to
 rename "HSTS Server" to "HSTS Host" and to somewhere in the spec
 mention explicitly that the port is ignored when matching host names.

 An alternate behavior would be that a server running on port X only
 specifies the behavior for that port, with a special case for the
 default ports 80/443 because they go unspecified. This would make
 sense from a security POV only if cookies were port-specific (with
 again a special case for the unspecified default ports), but I don't
 believe any browser implements cookies in that way. Handling HSTS in
 a port-specific manner also complicates the meaning of
 includeSubDomains.

 ###

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/websec/trac/ticket/4#comment:2>
websec <http://tools.ietf.org/websec/>