IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cellar] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 23 July 2020 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA773A0C27; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r1ng0Jn-5jh8; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11D833A0B66; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9CDB38A31; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:29:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5i__M0UISapu; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:29:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4B138A1A; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:29:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E929D9A; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:50:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
cc: secdir@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1.all@ietf.org, cellar@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <159537782564.14553.11293321898516651562@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <159537782564.14553.11293321898516651562@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:50:09 -0400
Message-ID: <21179.1595526609@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/BxkH0sgNhXSVE2Gckd12IhY0yTQ>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16
X-BeenThere: cellar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cellar/>
List-Post: <mailto:cellar@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:50:34 -0000

Liang Xia via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    > But about my one question, I have not seen any response or actions: "Issues for
    > clarification: In Security Considerations, besides the DoS attacks brought by
    > the malicious payloads, is there any other kinds of attack possibly? For
    > example, virus or worm are hidden in the malicious payloads to attack the
    > system for more damages? Does it make sense and what's the consideration?"

Hi, thank you for the review comments.
Aside from possible buffer-overflow attacks that would attempt to smash the
stack of a process, none of the content carried in ffv1 is intended to be executable.

A virus or worm hidden in the payload would be rendered as if it was visual
data by normal software processing.

Clearly, a malicious system could use the ffv1 format in an attempt to disquise
itself, but that would take a co-consipirator to extract that content.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email