The "SNI" Alt-Svc Parameter
draft-bishop-httpbis-sni-altsvc-00

Abstract

HTTP Alternative Services [AltSvc] provides a mechanism for an origin to declare that its content is accessible via some other combination of host, port, and protocol. In the process of using such an alternative, an observer can identify that the client is requesting resources from a particular hostname.

This document extends HTTP Alternative Services, in combination with Secondary Certificate Authentication ([SecondaryCerts]), to enable clients not to disclose the origin to which they intend to connect.

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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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 June 2, 2018.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2017 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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
• 1.1. Usage
• 1.2. Notational Conventions
• 2. The “sni” Alt-Svc Extension
• 3. Security Considerations
• 4. IANA Considerations
• 5. References
• 5.1. Normative References
• 5.2. Informative References
• Appendix A. Acknowledgements
• Author's Address

1. Introduction

Confidentiality and authentication during communication are primary goals of using TLS to secure traffic on the Internet. However, due to the nature of TLS, certain information is inherently not confidential – notably, the hostname and the corresponding certificate of the origin to which the client is connecting are transferred unencrypted in the Server Name Indication extension [SNI] and the server’s Certificate message [TLS12].

While the client identity can be obscured by using TLS renegotiation immediately after the handshake (in TLS 1.2) or by using TLS 1.3 [TLS13], the server is not afforded such privacy considerations.

[SNIEncryption] discusses some solutions in Section 3, HTTP Co-Tenancy Fronting, but notes both discoverability and server authentication issues with that approach. This document provides a mechanism to address both limitations.

1.1. Usage

In [AltSvc], once a client has received a validated Alternative Service record for an origin, it “SHOULD use that alternative service for all requests to the associated origin as soon as it is available, provided the alternative service information is fresh (Section 2.2) and the security properties of the alternative service protocol are desirable, as compared to the existing connection.” However, the client “MUST have reasonable assurances that the alternative service is under control of and valid for the whole origin … established through use of a TLS-based protocol with the certificate checks defined in [RFC2818].” This causes the origin to be disclosed in the SNI extension while connecting to the alternative, and the origin’s certificate to be returned by the alternative, creating the same privacy issues as connecting directly to the origin.

The extension described in Section 2 enables an origin to declare that reasonable assurances should be obtained, not by requesting the desired hostname in the TLS handshake, but by requesting it via [SecondaryCerts]. The validation checks from [RFC2818] are applied to this certificate.

Because the entire exchange happens inside TLS, a passive observer cannot identify the hostname(s) the client might be requesting.

1.2. Notational Conventions

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “NOT RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

The key words “MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON’T)”, “SHOULD CONSIDER”, “REALLY SHOULD NOT”, “OUGHT TO”, “WOULD PROBABLY”, “MAY WISH TO”, “COULD”, “POSSIBLE”, and “MIGHT” in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC6919].

Field definitions are given in Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF), as defined in [RFC5234].

2. The “sni” Alt-Svc Extension

When an origin wishes to nominate a “fronting server”, it includes the sni parameter in its alternative service entry.

Syntax:

sni = host

host is defined in Section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986].

When processing such an alternative, clients SHOULD present the hostname given in the sni parameter in the SNI extension during the TLS handshake. The client MAY choose not to validate the certificate in the handshake for authenticity according to [RFC2818], but MUST NOT make requests to any origin corresponding to this certificate unless the certificate has been successfully validated.

Immediately upon connecting, the client SHOULD send a CERTIFICATE_REQUEST frame including an SNI extension indicating the origin which published the alternative service. If no corresponding CERTIFICATE frame is presented by the server after a reasonable timeout, or if the server’s SETTINGS frame does not include the SETTINGS_HTTP_CERT_AUTH setting, the client MUST consider the alternative connection to have failed.

3. Security Considerations

[AltSvc] permits clients to ignore unrecognized parameters. As a result, servers publishing records with the sni parameter cannot be assured that clients will not include their origin in the SNI header when connecting to the nominated alternative. If, for security reasons, an origin wishes its identity never to be disclosed when the alternative is being used, an alternative mechanism would be required to ascertain client support before generating the Alt-Svc record.

Clients will need to connect directly to the origin at least once in order to receive the Alt-Svc entry via an HTTP header or ALTSVC frame, thus disclosing their use of the origin to the network on the first connection. This could be mitigated by future work defining a way to publish alternative services in a mechanism which can be retrieved confidentially, such as via DNS in combination with [RFC7858] or [DoH].

However, servers which publish Alt-Svc records over unencrypted channels (HTTP connections without TLS) or channels without client authorization (DNS, or publicly accessible HTTP resources) enable active observers to build a map of fronting servers by collecting Alt-Svc advertisements. Servers SHOULD CONSIDER this trade-off in deciding when and how to make Alt-Svc records available to unauthenticated parties.

4. IANA Considerations

The “Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Alt-Svc Parameter Registry” defines the name space for parameters, as described in [AltSvc]. It is maintained at http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-alt-svc-parameters.

This document registers the following parameter:

Name:

sni

Specification:

This document

5. References

5.1. Normative References

5.2. Informative References

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

Conversations with Benjamin Schwartz helped to flesh out this idea.

Author's Address