|
Lorenzo,
My interest in ICMP is that it could work with any protocol, not just HTTP, and doesn't require any MITM for HTTPS. I recall a discussion about adding a difficult-to-guess token to the ICMP message, making it hard to spoof. -Dave From: Captive-portals [[email protected]] on behalf of Lorenzo Colitti [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:42 AM To: David Bird Cc: [email protected]; Kyle Larose; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] Thinking of something related to captive portals for the ietf98 hackathon I'm not a fan of the ICMP method. I think the security implications need more thought.
As is, it looks like pretty much anyone on the Internet can send you one of these packets, and you have no way of knowing if it's legitimate. Relying on such an easy-to-spoof signal to decide that a network no longer provides Internet access could be quite
harmful, particularly if the receiving device decided to switch to cellular data and incur the associated traffic costs. Even if the signal is only taken as a hint to revalidate the network, that still has battery implications.
It would seem to be much more useful to use:
At the last IETF we talked about possibly having a more structured way of communicating this and other bits of information from captive portal to host (a RESTful API, IIRC). That would also be useful, if we can all collectively resist the temptation to
overengineer such a mechanism. :-)
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:31 PM, David Bird
<[email protected]> wrote:
|