(Retired.) Testing HTTP->HTTPS redirects for CDNs.
HTML JavaScript
Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Permalink
Failed to load latest commit information.
js cors hsts tests Feb 8, 2015
nginx header in wrong place? Feb 8, 2015
results results of testing with HSTS enabled Feb 8, 2015
.gitignore ignore todos Feb 2, 2015
CONTRIBUTING.md public domain Feb 2, 2015
LICENSE.md public domain Feb 2, 2015
README.md update IE HSTS thing Jul 13, 2015
index.html abbreviate Feb 8, 2015

README.md

Moving CDNs to HTTPS

Testing the effects of a 3rd party CDN (e.g. ajax.googleapis.com or cdnjs.com) forcing HTTPS via a redirect.

http://konklone.io/cdns-to-https

  • Will <script> tags to http:// successfully follow a 301 redirect to https://?
  • Will CORS requests to http:// successfully follow a 301 redirect to https://?
  • Is there a good reason to do this?

The answer to all of these is Yes.

Jump to the tests, and the conclusions.

Background

CDNs like Google's, jQuery's, and others have typically advocated protocol-relative URLs, like this:

<script src="//code.jquery.com/jquery-1.11.1.min.js"></script>

But now that HTTPS is fast, easy and increasingly necessary, protocol-relative URLs are an anti-pattern, so everyone should be using this:

<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.11.1.min.js"></script>

(And in fact, Google's CDN recently switched to recommending HTTPS URLs like the above.)

What CDNs need to do next is redirect HTTP requests to HTTPS, so that even insecure pages will fetch secure resources.

Testing redirects

The tests evaluate fetching <script> resources, and making CORS GET requests, in 3 scenarios:

  • Fetching an https:// resource directly. (control)
  • Fetching an http:// resource directly. (control)
  • Fetching an http:// resource that offers a 301 redirect to an https:// resource. (experiment)

These are each done via:

  • <script> tag
  • via a CORS GET request (except on IE9 and below, which do not support CORS)

To support IE6, the test server supports SSLv3 connections, which is insecure.

Results

  • Everyone supports the <script> redirect. This is by far the most common way that CDN resources are used.

  • CORS redirects are widely supported, as long as CORS headers are present at redirect-time. There are some issues:

    • iOS (all versions) and Android (below 4.4) don't properly redirect CORS requests because of a WebView bug with preflight requests.

    • Desktop Safari doesn't handle CORS redirects, for unknown reasons.

    • Very old versions of Firefox (e.g. 3.6) appear to not follow CORS redirects, though available information suggests it should be fine.

    • Very old versions of Chrome (e.g. 14) do not follow CORS redirects, I believe because of an old WebKit bug.

    • Some browsers do not properly support CORS at all (Opera before 12, IE before 10), and so are unaffected by a redirect.

These results were snapshotted on February 2, 2015, at commit 4bf9cbd94088f6545ef24a39375c6760cfc1e9af.

You can comb through all the screenshots for detailed results.

IE6 on Win XP SP3

Conclusion: CDNs should redirect to HTTPS

<script> tags are completely unaffected by 301 redirects from HTTP to HTTPS, even as far back as IE6.

The only hiccup a CDN might face during redirect are on users of CORS requests -- and only then on some mobile browsers, desktop Safari, and some other very old desktop browsers.

Unless a CDN has an extremely high CORS usage among very diverse clients, the benefits of a secure web seem to me to clearly outweigh the costs.

CDNs should redirect HTTP to HTTPS.

Why bother? Insecure pages using secure resources could just be MITMed and modified anyway.

CDNs are much more likely to be attacked than most of the individual sites that use them. They are a high-value target.

Using other domains for assets also increases the surface area of attack, opening up side-channel vulnerabilities like DNS poisoning.

Here's a real life example of the Syrian Electronic Army attacking a news site by DNS poisoning the subdomain that the news site was using as an asset CDN.

More generally, all unencrypted traffic should be considered sensitive and correlatable in unpredictable ways. This is why the web is moving to HTTPS, one way or another. The more traffic on the web that moves over to HTTPS, the easier it gets, and CDNs should play their part.

But wouldn't the redirect itself be insecure anyway?

Not if the CDN also enables Strict Transport Security, an HTTP header that instructs browsers to make all requests over HTTPS.

If a browser sees an http:// URL for a site that it knows has enabled Strict Transport, it will skip directly to HTTPS without issuing the initial insecure request.

They'll still have to get the insecure redirect at least once in order to see the Strict Transport header, right?

Even that first insecure request can be eliminated if CDN takes the final step of hardcoding their site into browsers as HTTPS-only.

Chrome maintains a list (also used by Firefox, Safari, and upcoming versions of Internet Explorer) of sites that come baked into the browser as Strict-Transport-enabled, meaning that even the first request is protected.

In this way, CDNs can immediately shift all past, present, and future users of their resources to all-HTTPS, all the time.

Public domain

All of this is released to the public domain under CC0.