Internet-Draft | Cookies: HTTP State Management Mechanism | November 2022 |
Bingler, et al. | Expires 11 May 2023 | [Page] |
This document defines the HTTP Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields. These header fields can be used by HTTP servers to store state (called cookies) at HTTP user agents, letting the servers maintain a stateful session over the mostly stateless HTTP protocol. Although cookies have many historical infelicities that degrade their security and privacy, the Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields are widely used on the Internet. This document obsoletes RFC 6265.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the HTTP Working Group mailing list (mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/. Working Group information can be found at https://httpwg.org/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/6265bis.¶
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 11 May 2023.¶
Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.¶
This document defines the HTTP Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields. Using the Set-Cookie header field, an HTTP server can pass name/value pairs and associated metadata (called cookies) to a user agent. When the user agent makes subsequent requests to the server, the user agent uses the metadata and other information to determine whether to return the name/value pairs in the Cookie header field.¶
Although simple on their surface, cookies have a number of complexities. For example, the server indicates a scope for each cookie when sending it to the user agent. The scope indicates the maximum amount of time in which the user agent should return the cookie, the servers to which the user agent should return the cookie, and the URI schemes for which the cookie is applicable.¶
For historical reasons, cookies contain a number of security and privacy infelicities. For example, a server can indicate that a given cookie is intended for "secure" connections, but the Secure attribute does not provide integrity in the presence of an active network attacker. Similarly, cookies for a given host are shared across all the ports on that host, even though the usual "same-origin policy" used by web browsers isolates content retrieved via different ports.¶
There are two audiences for this specification: developers of cookie-generating servers and developers of cookie-consuming user agents.¶
To maximize interoperability with user agents, servers SHOULD limit themselves to the well-behaved profile defined in Section 4 when generating cookies.¶
User agents MUST implement the more liberal processing rules defined in Section 5, in order to maximize interoperability with existing servers that do not conform to the well-behaved profile defined in Section 4.¶
This document specifies the syntax and semantics of these header fields as they are actually used on the Internet. In particular, this document does not create new syntax or semantics beyond those in use today. The recommendations for cookie generation provided in Section 4 represent a preferred subset of current server behavior, and even the more liberal cookie processing algorithm provided in Section 5 does not recommend all of the syntactic and semantic variations in use today. Where some existing software differs from the recommended protocol in significant ways, the document contains a note explaining the difference.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].¶
Requirements phrased in the imperative as part of algorithms (such as "strip any leading space characters" or "return false and abort these steps") are to be interpreted with the meaning of the key word ("MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY", etc.) used in introducing the algorithm.¶
Conformance requirements phrased as algorithms or specific steps can be implemented in any manner, so long as the end result is equivalent. In particular, the algorithms defined in this specification are intended to be easy to understand and are not intended to be performant.¶
This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of [RFC5234].¶
The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF (CR LF), CTLs (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote), HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), NUL (null octet), OCTET (any 8-bit sequence of data except NUL), SP (space), HTAB (horizontal tab), CHAR (any [USASCII] character), VCHAR (any visible [USASCII] character), and WSP (whitespace).¶
The OWS (optional whitespace) and BWS (bad whitespace) rules are defined in Section 5.6.3 of [HTTPSEM].¶
The terms "user agent", "client", "server", "proxy", and "origin server" have the same meaning as in the HTTP/1.1 specification ([HTTPSEM], Section 3).¶
The request-host is the name of the host, as known by the user agent, to which the user agent is sending an HTTP request or from which it is receiving an HTTP response (i.e., the name of the host to which it sent the corresponding HTTP request).¶
The term request-uri refers to "target URI" as defined in Section 7.1 of [HTTPSEM].¶
Two sequences of octets are said to case-insensitively match each other if and only if they are equivalent under the i;ascii-casemap collation defined in [RFC4790].¶
The term string means a sequence of non-NUL octets.¶
The terms "active document", "ancestor browsing context", "browsing context", "dedicated worker", "Document", "nested browsing context", "opaque origin", "parent browsing context", "sandboxed origin browsing context flag", "shared worker", "the worker's Documents", "top-level browsing context", and "WorkerGlobalScope" are defined in [HTML].¶
"Service Workers" are defined in the Service Workers specification [SERVICE-WORKERS].¶
The term "origin", the mechanism of deriving an origin from a URI, and the "the same" matching algorithm for origins are defined in [RFC6454].¶
"Safe" HTTP methods include GET
, HEAD
, OPTIONS
, and TRACE
, as defined
in Section 9.2.1 of [HTTPSEM].¶
A domain's "public suffix" is the portion of a domain that is controlled by a
public registry, such as "com", "co.uk", and "pvt.k12.wy.us". A domain's
"registrable domain" is the domain's public suffix plus the label to its left.
That is, for https://www.site.example
, the public suffix is example
, and the
registrable domain is site.example
. Whenever possible, user agents SHOULD
use an up-to-date public suffix list, such as the one maintained by the Mozilla
project at [PSL].¶
The term "request", as well as a request's "client", "current url", "method", "target browsing context", and "url list", are defined in [FETCH].¶
The term "non-HTTP APIs" refers to non-HTTP mechanisms used to set and retrieve cookies, such as a web browser API that exposes cookies to scripts.¶
This section outlines a way for an origin server to send state information to a user agent and for the user agent to return the state information to the origin server.¶
To store state, the origin server includes a Set-Cookie header field in an HTTP response. In subsequent requests, the user agent returns a Cookie request header field to the origin server. The Cookie header field contains cookies the user agent received in previous Set-Cookie header fields. The origin server is free to ignore the Cookie header field or use its contents for an application-defined purpose.¶
Origin servers MAY send a Set-Cookie response header field with any response. An origin server can include multiple Set-Cookie header fields in a single response. The presence of a Cookie or a Set-Cookie header field does not preclude HTTP caches from storing and reusing a response.¶
Origin servers SHOULD NOT fold multiple Set-Cookie header fields into a single header field. The usual mechanism for folding HTTP headers fields (i.e., as defined in Section 5.3 of [HTTPSEM]) might change the semantics of the Set-Cookie header field because the %x2C (",") character is used by Set-Cookie in a way that conflicts with such folding.¶
User agents MAY ignore Set-Cookie header fields based on response status codes or the user agent's cookie policy (see Section 5.3).¶
Using the Set-Cookie header field, a server can send the user agent a short string in an HTTP response that the user agent will return in future HTTP requests that are within the scope of the cookie. For example, the server can send the user agent a "session identifier" named SID with the value 31d4d96e407aad42. The user agent then returns the session identifier in subsequent requests.¶
== Server -> User Agent == Set-Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42 == User Agent -> Server == Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42¶
The server can alter the default scope of the cookie using the Path and Domain attributes. For example, the server can instruct the user agent to return the cookie to every path and every subdomain of site.example.¶
== Server -> User Agent == Set-Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42; Path=/; Domain=site.example == User Agent -> Server == Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42¶
As shown in the next example, the server can store multiple cookies at the user agent. For example, the server can store a session identifier as well as the user's preferred language by returning two Set-Cookie header fields. Notice that the server uses the Secure and HttpOnly attributes to provide additional security protections for the more sensitive session identifier (see Section 4.1.2).¶
== Server -> User Agent == Set-Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42; Path=/; Secure; HttpOnly Set-Cookie: lang=en-US; Path=/; Domain=site.example == User Agent -> Server == Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42; lang=en-US¶
Notice that the Cookie header field above contains two cookies, one named SID and one named lang. If the server wishes the user agent to persist the cookie over multiple "sessions" (e.g., user agent restarts), the server can specify an expiration date in the Expires attribute. Note that the user agent might delete the cookie before the expiration date if the user agent's cookie store exceeds its quota or if the user manually deletes the server's cookie.¶
== Server -> User Agent == Set-Cookie: lang=en-US; Expires=Wed, 09 Jun 2021 10:18:14 GMT == User Agent -> Server == Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42; lang=en-US¶
Finally, to remove a cookie, the server returns a Set-Cookie header field with an expiration date in the past. The server will be successful in removing the cookie only if the Path and the Domain attribute in the Set-Cookie header field match the values used when the cookie was created.¶
== Server -> User Agent == Set-Cookie: lang=; Expires=Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT == User Agent -> Server == Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42¶
This section describes the syntax and semantics of a well-behaved profile of the Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields.¶
This section specifies the Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields in sufficient detail that a user agent implementing these requirements precisely can interoperate with existing servers (even those that do not conform to the well-behaved profile described in Section 4).¶
A user agent could enforce more restrictions than those specified herein (e.g., restrictions specified by its cookie policy, described in Section 7.2). However, such additional restrictions may reduce the likelihood that a user agent will be able to interoperate with existing servers.¶
This section defines some algorithms used by user agents to process specific subcomponents of the Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields.¶
A canonicalized host name is the string generated by the following algorithm:¶
A string domain-matches a given domain string if at least one of the following conditions hold:¶
Two origins are same-site if they satisfy the "same site" criteria defined in [SAMESITE]. A request is "same-site" if the following criteria are true:¶
Requests which are the result of a reload navigation triggered through a user interface element are same-site if the reloaded document was originally navigated to via a same-site request. A request that is not "same-site" is instead "cross-site".¶
The request's client's "site for cookies" is calculated depending upon its client's type, as described in the following subsections:¶
The URI displayed in a user agent's address bar is the only security context directly exposed to users, and therefore the only signal users can reasonably rely upon to determine whether or not they trust a particular website. The origin of that URI represents the context in which a user most likely believes themselves to be interacting. We'll define this origin, the top-level browsing context's active document's origin, as the "top-level origin".¶
For a document displayed in a top-level browsing context, we can stop here: the document's "site for cookies" is the top-level origin.¶
For documents which are displayed in nested browsing contexts, we need to audit the origins of each of a document's ancestor browsing contexts' active documents in order to account for the "multiple-nested scenarios" described in Section 4 of [RFC7034]. A document's "site for cookies" is the top-level origin if and only if the top-level origin is same-site with the document's origin, and with each of the document's ancestor documents' origins. Otherwise its "site for cookies" is an origin set to an opaque origin.¶
Given a Document (document
), the following algorithm returns its "site for
cookies":¶
top-document
be the active document in document
's browsing context's
top-level browsing context.¶
top-origin
be the origin of top-document
's URI if top-document
's
sandboxed origin browsing context flag is set, and top-document
's origin
otherwise.¶
documents
be a list containing document
and each of document
's
ancestor browsing contexts' active documents.¶
For each item
in documents
:¶
top-origin
.¶
Worker-driven requests aren't as clear-cut as document-driven requests, as there isn't a clear link between a top-level browsing context and a worker. This is especially true for Service Workers [SERVICE-WORKERS], which may execute code in the background, without any document visible at all.¶
Note: The descriptions below assume that workers must be same-origin with the documents that instantiate them. If this invariant changes, we'll need to take the worker's script's URI into account when determining their status.¶
Service Workers are more complicated, as they act as a completely separate execution context with only tangential relationship to the Document which registered them.¶
How user agents handle Service Workers may differ, but user agents SHOULD match the [SERVICE-WORKERS] specification.¶
User agents' requirements for cookie name prefixes differ slightly from servers' (Section 4.1.3) in that UAs MUST match the prefix string case-insensitively.¶
The normative requirements for the prefixes are detailed in the storage model algorithm defined in Section 5.6.¶
This is because some servers will process cookie case-insensitively, resulting in them unintentionally miscapitalizing and accepting miscapitalized prefixes.¶
For example, if a server sends the following Set-Cookie
header field¶
Set-Cookie: __SECURE-SID=12345¶
to a UA which checks prefixes case-sensitively it will accept this cookie and
the server would incorrectly believe the cookie is subject the same guarantees
as one spelled __Secure-
.¶
Additionally the server is vulnerable to an attacker that purposefully
miscapitalizes a cookie in order to impersonate a prefixed cookie. For example,
a site already has a cookie __Secure-SID=12345
and by some means an attacker
sends the following Set-Cookie
header field for the site to a UA which checks
prefixes case-sensitively.¶
Set-Cookie: __SeCuRe-SID=evil¶
The next time a user visits the site the UA will send both cookies:¶
Cookie: __Secure-SID=12345; __SeCuRe-SID=evil¶
The server, being case-insensitive, won't be able to tell the difference between the two cookies allowing the attacker to compromise the site.¶
To prevent these issues, UAs MUST match cookie name prefixes case-insensitive.¶
Note: Cookies with different names are still considered separate by UAs. So
both __Secure-foo=bar
and __secure-foo=baz
can exist as distinct cookies
simultaneously and both would have the requirements of the __Secure-
prefix
applied.¶
The following are examples of Set-Cookie
header fields that would be rejected
by a conformant user agent.¶
Set-Cookie: __Secure-SID=12345; Domain=site.example Set-Cookie: __secure-SID=12345; Domain=site.example Set-Cookie: __SECURE-SID=12345; Domain=site.example Set-Cookie: __Host-SID=12345 Set-Cookie: __host-SID=12345; Secure Set-Cookie: __host-SID=12345; Domain=site.example Set-Cookie: __HOST-SID=12345; Domain=site.example; Path=/ Set-Cookie: __Host-SID=12345; Secure; Domain=site.example; Path=/ Set-Cookie: __host-SID=12345; Secure; Domain=site.example; Path=/ Set-Cookie: __HOST-SID=12345; Secure; Domain=site.example; Path=/¶
Whereas the following Set-Cookie
header fields would be accepted if set from
a secure origin.¶
Set-Cookie: __Secure-SID=12345; Domain=site.example; Secure Set-Cookie: __secure-SID=12345; Domain=site.example; Secure Set-Cookie: __SECURE-SID=12345; Domain=site.example; Secure Set-Cookie: __Host-SID=12345; Secure; Path=/ Set-Cookie: __host-SID=12345; Secure; Path=/ Set-Cookie: __HOST-SID=12345; Secure; Path=/¶
The user agent stores the following fields about each cookie: name, value, expiry-time, domain, path, creation-time, last-access-time, persistent-flag, host-only-flag, secure-only-flag, http-only-flag, and same-site-flag.¶
When the user agent "receives a cookie" from a request-uri with name cookie-name, value cookie-value, and attributes cookie-attribute-list, the user agent MUST process the cookie as follows:¶
If the cookie-attribute-list contains an attribute with an attribute-name of "Max-Age":¶
Otherwise, if the cookie-attribute-list contains an attribute with an attribute-name of "Expires" (and does not contain an attribute with an attribute-name of "Max-Age"):¶
Otherwise:¶
If the cookie-attribute-list contains an attribute with an attribute-name of "Domain":¶
Otherwise:¶
If the user agent is configured to reject "public suffixes" and the domain-attribute is a public suffix:¶
If the domain-attribute is identical to the canonicalized request-host:¶
Otherwise:¶
NOTE: This step prevents attacker.example
from disrupting the integrity of
site.example
by setting a cookie with a Domain attribute of "example".¶
If the domain-attribute is non-empty:¶
If the canonicalized request-host does not domain-match the domain-attribute:¶
Otherwise:¶
Otherwise:¶
If the cookie's secure-only-flag is false, and the scheme component of request-uri does not denote a "secure" protocol, then abort these steps and ignore the cookie entirely if the cookie store contains one or more cookies that meet all of the following criteria:¶
Note: The path comparison is not symmetric, ensuring only that a newly-created, non-secure cookie does not overlay an existing secure cookie, providing some mitigation against cookie-fixing attacks. That is, given an existing secure cookie named 'a' with a path of '/login', a non-secure cookie named 'a' could be set for a path of '/' or '/foo', but not for a path of '/login' or '/login/en'.¶
If the cookie's same-site-flag
is not "None":¶
If the cookie was received from a request which is navigating a
top-level browsing context [HTML] (e.g. if the request's "reserved
client" is either null
or an environment whose "target browsing
context" is a top-level browing context), skip the remaining substeps
and continue processing the cookie.¶
Note: Top-level navigations can create a cookie with any SameSite
value, even if the new cookie wouldn't have been sent along with
the request had it already existed prior to the navigation.¶
If the cookie-name begins with a case-insensitive match for the string "__Host-", abort these steps and ignore the cookie entirely unless the cookie meets all the following criteria:¶
If the cookie-name is empty and either of the following conditions are true, abort these steps and ignore the cookie:¶
If the cookie store contains a cookie with the same name, domain, host-only-flag, and path as the newly-created cookie:¶
A cookie is "expired" if the cookie has an expiry date in the past.¶
The user agent MUST evict all expired cookies from the cookie store if, at any time, an expired cookie exists in the cookie store.¶
At any time, the user agent MAY "remove excess cookies" from the cookie store if the number of cookies sharing a domain field exceeds some implementation-defined upper bound (such as 50 cookies).¶
At any time, the user agent MAY "remove excess cookies" from the cookie store if the cookie store exceeds some predetermined upper bound (such as 3000 cookies).¶
When the user agent removes excess cookies from the cookie store, the user agent MUST evict cookies in the following priority order:¶
If two cookies have the same removal priority, the user agent MUST evict the cookie with the earliest last-access-time first.¶
When "the current session is over" (as defined by the user agent), the user agent MUST remove from the cookie store all cookies with the persistent-flag set to false.¶
This section defines how cookies are retrieved from a cookie store in the form of a cookie-string. A "retrieval" is any event which requires generating a cookie-string. For example, a retrieval may occur in order to build a Cookie header field for an HTTP request, or may be required in order to return a cookie-string from a call to a "non-HTTP" API that provides access to cookies. A retrieval has an associated URI, same-site status, and type, which are defined below depending on the type of retrieval.¶
The user agent MAY implement "non-HTTP" APIs that can be used to access stored cookies.¶
A user agent MAY return an empty cookie-string in certain contexts, such as when a retrieval occurs within a third-party context (see Section 7.1).¶
If a user agent does return cookies for a given call to a "non-HTTP" API with an associated Document, then the user agent MUST compute the cookie-string following the algorithm defined in Section 5.7.3, where the retrieval's URI is defined by the caller (see [DOM-DOCUMENT-COOKIE]), the retrieval's same-site status is "same-site" if the Document's "site for cookies" is same-site with the top-level origin as defined in Section 5.2.1 (otherwise it is "cross-site"), and the retrieval's type is "non-HTTP".¶
Given a cookie store and a retrieval, the following algorithm returns a cookie-string from a given cookie store.¶
Let cookie-list be the set of cookies from the cookie store that meets all of the following requirements:¶
Either:¶
Or:¶
NOTE: (For user agents configured to reject "public suffixes") It's possible that the public suffix list was changed since a cookie was created. If this change results in a cookie's domain becoming a public suffix then that cookie is considered invalid as it would have been rejected during creation (See Section 5.6 step 9). User agents should be careful to avoid retrieving these invalid cookies even if they domain-match the host of the retrieval's URI.¶
If the cookie's secure-only-flag is true, then the retrieval's URI's scheme must denote a "secure" protocol (as defined by the user agent).¶
NOTE: The notion of a "secure" protocol is not defined by this document. Typically, user agents consider a protocol secure if the protocol makes use of transport-layer security, such as SSL or TLS. For example, most user agents consider "https" to be a scheme that denotes a secure protocol.¶
If the cookie's same-site-flag is not "None" and the retrieval's same-site status is "cross-site", then exclude the cookie unless all of the following conditions are met:¶
The user agent SHOULD sort the cookie-list in the following order:¶
NOTE: Not all user agents sort the cookie-list in this order, but this order reflects common practice when this document was written, and, historically, there have been servers that (erroneously) depended on this order.¶
Serialize the cookie-list into a cookie-string by processing each cookie in the cookie-list in order:¶
Practical user agent implementations have limits on the number and size of cookies that they can store. General-use user agents SHOULD provide each of the following minimum capabilities:¶
User agents MAY limit the maximum number of cookies they store, and may evict any cookie at any time (whether at the request of the user or due to implementation limitations).¶
Note that a limit on the maximum number of cookies also limits the total size of the stored cookies, due to the length limits which MUST be enforced in Section 5.5.¶
Servers SHOULD use as few and as small cookies as possible to avoid reaching these implementation limits and to minimize network bandwidth due to the Cookie header field being included in every request.¶
Servers SHOULD gracefully degrade if the user agent fails to return one or more cookies in the Cookie header field because the user agent might evict any cookie at any time.¶
One reason the Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields use such esoteric syntax is that many platforms (both in servers and user agents) provide a string-based application programming interface (API) to cookies, requiring application-layer programmers to generate and parse the syntax used by the Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields, which many programmers have done incorrectly, resulting in interoperability problems.¶
Instead of providing string-based APIs to cookies, platforms would be well-served by providing more semantic APIs. It is beyond the scope of this document to recommend specific API designs, but there are clear benefits to accepting an abstract "Date" object instead of a serialized date string.¶
IDNA2008 [RFC5890] supersedes IDNA2003 [RFC3490]. However, there are differences between the two specifications, and thus there can be differences in processing (e.g., converting) domain name labels that have been registered under one from those registered under the other. There will be a transition period of some time during which IDNA2003-based domain name labels will exist in the wild. User agents SHOULD implement IDNA2008 [RFC5890] and MAY implement [UTS46] or [RFC5895] in order to facilitate their IDNA transition. If a user agent does not implement IDNA2008, the user agent MUST implement IDNA2003 [RFC3490].¶
Cookies' primary privacy risk is their ability to correlate user activity. This can happen on a single site, but is most problematic when activity is tracked across different, seemingly unconnected Web sites to build a user profile.¶
Over time, this capability (warned against explicitly in [RFC2109] and all of its successors) has become widely used for varied reasons including:¶
While not every use of cookies is necessarily problematic for privacy, their potential for abuse has become a widespread concern in the Internet community and broader society. In response to these concerns, user agents have actively constrained cookie functionality in various ways (as allowed and encouraged by previous specifications), while avoiding disruption to features they judge desirable for the health of the Web.¶
It is too early to declare consensus on which specific mechanism(s) should be used to mitigate cookies' privacy impact; user agents' ongoing changes to how they are handled are best characterised as experiments that can provide input into that eventual consensus.¶
Instead, this document describes limited, general mitigations against the privacy risks associated with cookies that enjoy wide deployment at the time of writing. It is expected that implementations will continue to experiment and impose stricter, more well-defined limitations on cookies over time. Future versions of this document might codify those mechanisms based upon deployment experience. If functions that currently rely on cookies can be supported by separate, targeted mechanisms, they might be documented in separate specifications and stricter limitations on cookies might become feasible.¶
Note that cookies are not the only mechanism that can be used to track users across sites, so while these mitigations are necessary to improve Web privacy, they are not sufficient on their own.¶
User agents SHOULD provide users with a mechanism for managing the cookies stored in the cookie store. For example, a user agent might let users delete all cookies received during a specified time period or all the cookies related to a particular domain. In addition, many user agents include a user interface element that lets users examine the cookies stored in their cookie store.¶
User agents SHOULD provide users with a mechanism for disabling cookies. When cookies are disabled, the user agent MUST NOT include a Cookie header field in outbound HTTP requests and the user agent MUST NOT process Set-Cookie header fields in inbound HTTP responses.¶
User agents MAY offer a way to change the cookie policy (see Section 7.2).¶
User agents MAY provide users the option of preventing persistent storage of cookies across sessions. When configured thusly, user agents MUST treat all received cookies as if the persistent-flag were set to false. Some popular user agents expose this functionality via "private browsing" mode [Aggarwal2010].¶
Although servers can set the expiration date for cookies to the distant future, most user agents do not actually retain cookies for multiple decades. Rather than choosing gratuitously long expiration periods, servers SHOULD promote user privacy by selecting reasonable cookie expiration periods based on the purpose of the cookie. For example, a typical session identifier might reasonably be set to expire in two weeks.¶
Cookies have a number of security pitfalls. This section overviews a few of the more salient issues.¶
In particular, cookies encourage developers to rely on ambient authority for authentication, often becoming vulnerable to attacks such as cross-site request forgery [CSRF]. Also, when storing session identifiers in cookies, developers often create session fixation vulnerabilities.¶
Transport-layer encryption, such as that employed in HTTPS, is insufficient to prevent a network attacker from obtaining or altering a victim's cookies because the cookie protocol itself has various vulnerabilities (see "Weak Confidentiality" and "Weak Integrity", below). In addition, by default, cookies do not provide confidentiality or integrity from network attackers, even when used in conjunction with HTTPS.¶
Unless sent over a secure channel (such as TLS), the information in the Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields is transmitted in the clear.¶
Servers SHOULD encrypt and sign the contents of cookies (using whatever format the server desires) when transmitting them to the user agent (even when sending the cookies over a secure channel). However, encrypting and signing cookie contents does not prevent an attacker from transplanting a cookie from one user agent to another or from replaying the cookie at a later time.¶
In addition to encrypting and signing the contents of every cookie, servers that require a higher level of security SHOULD use the Cookie and Set-Cookie header fields only over a secure channel. When using cookies over a secure channel, servers SHOULD set the Secure attribute (see Section 4.1.2.5) for every cookie. If a server does not set the Secure attribute, the protection provided by the secure channel will be largely moot.¶
For example, consider a webmail server that stores a session identifier in a cookie and is typically accessed over HTTPS. If the server does not set the Secure attribute on its cookies, an active network attacker can intercept any outbound HTTP request from the user agent and redirect that request to the webmail server over HTTP. Even if the webmail server is not listening for HTTP connections, the user agent will still include cookies in the request. The active network attacker can intercept these cookies, replay them against the server, and learn the contents of the user's email. If, instead, the server had set the Secure attribute on its cookies, the user agent would not have included the cookies in the clear-text request.¶
Instead of storing session information directly in a cookie (where it might be exposed to or replayed by an attacker), servers commonly store a nonce (or "session identifier") in a cookie. When the server receives an HTTP request with a nonce, the server can look up state information associated with the cookie using the nonce as a key.¶
Using session identifier cookies limits the damage an attacker can cause if the attacker learns the contents of a cookie because the nonce is useful only for interacting with the server (unlike non-nonce cookie content, which might itself be sensitive). Furthermore, using a single nonce prevents an attacker from "splicing" together cookie content from two interactions with the server, which could cause the server to behave unexpectedly.¶
Using session identifiers is not without risk. For example, the server SHOULD take care to avoid "session fixation" vulnerabilities. A session fixation attack proceeds in three steps. First, the attacker transplants a session identifier from his or her user agent to the victim's user agent. Second, the victim uses that session identifier to interact with the server, possibly imbuing the session identifier with the user's credentials or confidential information. Third, the attacker uses the session identifier to interact with server directly, possibly obtaining the user's authority or confidential information.¶
Cookies do not provide isolation by port. If a cookie is readable by a service running on one port, the cookie is also readable by a service running on another port of the same server. If a cookie is writable by a service on one port, the cookie is also writable by a service running on another port of the same server. For this reason, servers SHOULD NOT both run mutually distrusting services on different ports of the same host and use cookies to store security-sensitive information.¶
Cookies do not provide isolation by scheme. Although most commonly used with the http and https schemes, the cookies for a given host might also be available to other schemes, such as ftp and gopher. Although this lack of isolation by scheme is most apparent in non-HTTP APIs that permit access to cookies (e.g., HTML's document.cookie API), the lack of isolation by scheme is actually present in requirements for processing cookies themselves (e.g., consider retrieving a URI with the gopher scheme via HTTP).¶
Cookies do not always provide isolation by path. Although the network-level protocol does not send cookies stored for one path to another, some user agents expose cookies via non-HTTP APIs, such as HTML's document.cookie API. Because some of these user agents (e.g., web browsers) do not isolate resources received from different paths, a resource retrieved from one path might be able to access cookies stored for another path.¶
Cookies do not provide integrity guarantees for sibling domains (and their subdomains). For example, consider foo.site.example and bar.site.example. The foo.site.example server can set a cookie with a Domain attribute of "site.example" (possibly overwriting an existing "site.example" cookie set by bar.site.example), and the user agent will include that cookie in HTTP requests to bar.site.example. In the worst case, bar.site.example will be unable to distinguish this cookie from a cookie it set itself. The foo.site.example server might be able to leverage this ability to mount an attack against bar.site.example.¶
Even though the Set-Cookie header field supports the Path attribute, the Path attribute does not provide any integrity protection because the user agent will accept an arbitrary Path attribute in a Set-Cookie header field. For example, an HTTP response to a request for http://site.example/foo/bar can set a cookie with a Path attribute of "/qux". Consequently, servers SHOULD NOT both run mutually distrusting services on different paths of the same host and use cookies to store security-sensitive information.¶
An active network attacker can also inject cookies into the Cookie header field sent to https://site.example/ by impersonating a response from http://site.example/ and injecting a Set-Cookie header field. The HTTPS server at site.example will be unable to distinguish these cookies from cookies that it set itself in an HTTPS response. An active network attacker might be able to leverage this ability to mount an attack against site.example even if site.example uses HTTPS exclusively.¶
Servers can partially mitigate these attacks by encrypting and signing the
contents of their cookies, or by naming the cookie with the __Secure-
prefix.
However, using cryptography does not mitigate the issue completely because an
attacker can replay a cookie he or she received from the authentic site.example
server in the user's session, with unpredictable results.¶
Finally, an attacker might be able to force the user agent to delete cookies by storing a large number of cookies. Once the user agent reaches its storage limit, the user agent will be forced to evict some cookies. Servers SHOULD NOT rely upon user agents retaining cookies.¶
Cookies rely upon the Domain Name System (DNS) for security. If the DNS is partially or fully compromised, the cookie protocol might fail to provide the security properties required by applications.¶
Fixes to formatting caused by mistakes in the initial port to Markdown:¶
path-value
and extension-av
grammar, errata 4148 by updating the day-of-month
, year
, and time
grammar, and errata 3663 by adding the requested note.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6265¶
Cookie2
and Set-Cookie2
from the IANA Considerations section:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/247¶
__Secure-
and __Host-
cookie name prefix processing instructions.¶
SameSite
attribute.¶
Closed a number of editorial bugs:¶
__Host-
prefix requires an explicit Path
attribute:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/222¶
host-only-flag
when calculating its uniqueness:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/199¶
SameSite
cookies to be set for all top-level navigations.
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/594¶
Set-Cookie: token
as creating the cookie ("", "token")
:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/159¶
Set-Cookie: =
and
Set-Cookie:
: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/159¶
SameSite
attributes in a cookie string:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/901¶
cookie-pair
and the Cookie
header
production: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1074,
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1119.¶
same-site-flag
, equivalent to
"SameSite=Lax":
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1325.¶
RFC 6265 was written by Adam Barth. This document is an update of RFC 6265, adding features and aligning the specification with the reality of today's deployments. Here, we're standing upon the shoulders of a giant since the majority of the text is still Adam's.¶
Thank you to both Lily Chen and Steven Englehardt, editors emeritus, for their significant contributions improving this draft.¶