Re: [clue] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-clue-signaling-14: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 22 November 2018 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84F412DF72 for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:27:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 3wKjtoD4Vm3C for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:27:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 784A712D84C for <clue@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:27:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id s5-v6so8286121ljd.12 for <clue@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:27:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kGxrA9CKyXeSP8DzDuBRz7zsQgH3XpSB3FNlBwDKYVY=; b=0y6yb0AxPRqfx1kuzOkA9QbFy+0lgaXeAGTj5uZtvDODmSi+2t5e9WeY2g/vmPYrk+ IcFSX4ZVtqQSTvFWqlJODM9anFmi/4boR0ihKwYc6pX3UswyIR/r+6SoplmV+aWUMbGj AhtAeMIZ1y/YO+P5umsmb6w9ghwLtlLn0GyldpQjrtH4k6sDN1n7Dhjcm+gDVnoCryxL FnuhamPkCoWLM15zsncSFPpL6KOzMxQvQN9AaA4YsPWLOSlLBmkLOBpegnGQAGoujDZA EZmfXi2GC0a4ki0gvlEHLPD7iViozxXOTPbr+E+ZQc8u9N/UAT3Qokh0sGvw/ythPA6X lfWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kGxrA9CKyXeSP8DzDuBRz7zsQgH3XpSB3FNlBwDKYVY=; b=dKWfvqRz5CBPLayXrfoGiONIpww2Vlz34FcPP5DQpjhKPlPtRmVMmLelNte/QIi/B1 rgA4AboWTLXiUryao0Q+2s9MnzCBgn/gVz7xrQ0HYI/E7b51b6HMRGqU9ZN7phEh9xfc v/YQiv49rcoBjImtWj7CSxxFpRLzIQkRbhcZNhOLHpV7snGbE5zcmO87AvxexhwXkc+a chMh3x1kUP04zorSmpXA+Ij8OhaAWeeaZ8OAzs/D5qY8Mb1zx3Vctd8tuw9aidC9H4Ma Jn0Nw3PY5kwSZT7tiZLIeQXLMD2kVL4pP/iJRANIeflWHx5es2yUmchxGaVTqvQCn8RY twCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gK3ZqmTh6Qkhr75gzD6nn+CDBQYA6yuNV3JhXWJ/7iuQEYKxAvx sblVCV2bX239ceQJ87U048UjCVPqHnpyIl+C71sg6g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VgDGQXcqt0k4WrkJTvzUIjapet8PLYJpjtiDuMAVdz2Dp9YNn2vGng5spYZ0mKpCMHA0Ay3uYOnqRtGjiYPiE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:1551:: with SMTP id 17-v6mr7251855ljv.68.1542900466622; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:27:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154268892146.26648.17870778354406192041.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18C762DF@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18C762DF@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:27:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMcQxZuRUFx=tz==C5eCc8zNBrxkKaZfBa+gYnyaV3FOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Daniel Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com>, clue@ietf.org, roni.even@mail01.huawei.com, clue-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-clue-signaling@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003cbcca057b428217"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/clue/nrL_Lu-oVJRvuLSBplzLSn5WtWM>
Subject: Re: [clue] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-clue-signaling-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: clue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: CLUE - ControLling mUltiple streams for TElepresence <clue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/clue/>
List-Post: <mailto:clue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 15:27:54 -0000

The problem is that this is in the context of amplification attacks

   Beyond the need to secure the constituent protocols, the use of CLUE
   does impose additional security concerns.  One area of increased risk
   involves the potential for a malicious party to subvert a CLUE-
   capable device to attack a third party by driving large volumes of
   media (particularly video) traffic at them by establishing a
   connection to the CLUE-capable device and directing the media to the
   victim.  While this is a risk for all media devices, a CLUE-capable
   device may allow the attacker to configure multiple media streams to
   be sent, significantly increasing the volume of traffic directed at
   the victim.

   This attack can be prevented by ensuring that the media recipient
   intends to receive the media packets.  As such all CLUE-capable
   devices MUST support key negotiation and receiver intent assurance
   via DTLS-SRTP [RFC5763] on CLUE-controlled RTP "m=" lines.

And so if you don't require DTLS-SRTP or ICE than in fact there is no
amplification
attack defense.

-Ekr


On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:24 AM Roni Even (A) <roni.even@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> RTP payloads do not require usage of SRTP see RFC7201 and RFC7202
> Roni Even
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 6:42 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: Daniel C. Burnett; clue@ietf.org; roni.even@mail01.huawei.com; Roni
> Even; clue-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-clue-signaling@ietf.org
> Subject: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-clue-signaling-14:
> (with COMMENT)
>
> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-clue-signaling-14: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-clue-signaling/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Rich version of this review at:
> https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D4099
>
>
>
> COMMENTS
> S 12.
> >      via DTLS-SRTP [RFC5763] on CLUE-controlled RTP "m=" lines.  All
> CLUE-
> >      controlled RTP "m" lines must be secured and implemented using
> >      mechanisms such as SRTP [RFC3711].  CLUE implementations MAY choose
> >      not to require the use of SRTP to secure legacy
> (non-CLUE-controlled)
> >      media for backwards compatibility with older SIP clients that are
> >      incapable of supporting it.
>
> It seems like you need more than support, you also need to require the use
> of DTLS-SRTP, no?
>
>
>