On 09/22/2010 05:05 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Strictly, as a request directive it means "you can't store the
response to this request" -- it says nothing about whether or not you
can satisfy the request from a cache.
Hi Mark,
Let's assume the above is correct and Squid satisfied the no-store
request from the cache. Should Squid purge the cached response afterwards?
If Squid does not purge, the next regular request will get the same
cached response as the no-store request got, kind of violating the "MUST
NOT store any response to it" no-store requirement.
If Squid purges, it is kind of silly because earlier requests could have
gotten the same "sensitive" information before the no-store request came
and declared the already cached information "sensitive".
Thank you,
Alex.
See also:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-11#section-3.2.1
On 23/09/2010, at 4:27 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
Hello,
One interpretation of RFC 2616 allows the proxy to serve hits when
the request contains "Cache-Control: no-store". Do you think such an
interpretation is valid?
no-store
The purpose of the no-store directive is to prevent the
inadvertent release or retention of sensitive information (for
example, on backup tapes). The no-store directive applies to the
entire message, and MAY be sent either in a response or in a
request. If sent in a request, a cache MUST NOT store any part of
either this request or any response to it.
Thank you,
Alex.
--
Mark Nottingham [email protected]
