]> Microsoft

dragana.damjano@gmail.com

ART HTTP Internet-Draft The WebSocket protocol specifies that all frames sent from the client to the server must be masked. This was introduced as a protection against a possible attack on the infrastructure. With careful consideration, the masking could be omitted when intermediaries do not have access to the unencrypted traffic. This specification introduces a WebSocket extension that disables the mandatory masking of frames sent from the client to the server. The extension is allowed only if the client uses an encrypted connection.

Introduction The WebSocket protocol specifies that all frames sent from the client to the server must be masked . This was introduced as a protection against a possible attack on the infrastructure described in . The attack can be performed on intermediaries, such as proxies and it could cause cache poisoning. Using end-to-end encryption, the attack can be mitigated without the use of masking. This is because every intermediary will be denied access to the unencrypted traffic, which prevents the caching attack. The masking has been made mandatory for the connection using TLS to protect the infrastructure that is behind TLS terminating proxies. This specification introduces a WebSocket extension that disables the masking of frames sent from the client to the server. The support for the extension will be advertised by the client (see ). The server may accept or decline the extension. The client can advertise the extension only if an encrypted connection.

Conventions and Definitions 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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

The "no-masking" extension The "no-masking" extension is negotiated using the WebSocket extension mechanism described in . The client advertises support for the extension by sending "no-masking" in the list of supported extensions sent in the "Sec-WebSocket-Extensions" header field. The server accepts the extension, by sending "no-masking" in the "Sec-WebSocket-Extensions" header value. The client MUST NOT send the extension if a non-secure connection is used. If the "no-masking" extension is negotiated the client and the server behavior are:

• The client MUST send data to the server without masking. The client sets the field "frame-masked" to 0 on all frames. As defined in , the field "frame-masking-key" will not be present.
• The server must only accept frames with the field "frame-masked" set to 0. If the server receives a frame with the field "frame-masked" set to 1, it MUST close the connection with the status code 1002 define in .

Security Considerations TBA

IANA Considerations IANA has registered the following WebSocket extension name in the "WebSocket Extension Name Registry" defined in . Extension Identifier: no-masking Extension Common Name: Disable the WebSocket client-to-server masking Extension Definition: This document. Known Incompatible Extensions: None The "no-masking" extension name is used in the "Sec-WebSocket-Extensions" header in the WebSocket opening handshake to negotiate disabling of the client-to-server masking.

Normative References The WebSocket Protocol enables two-way communication between a client running untrusted code in a controlled environment to a remote host that has opted-in to communications from that code. The security model used for this is the origin-based security model commonly used by web browsers. The protocol consists of an opening handshake followed by basic message framing, layered over TCP. The goal of this technology is to provide a mechanism for browser-based applications that need two-way communication with servers that does not rely on opening multiple HTTP connections (e.g., using XMLHttpRequest or s and long polling). [STANDARDS-TRACK] In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.

Acknowledgments