IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-johnston-dispatch-osrtp-00.txt

Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> Fri, 10 July 2015 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDE71A1B76 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 frH1qq7okYhf for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) (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 015FF1A1AB9 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by widjy10 with SMTP id jy10so2863804wid.1 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GGhnf2DSIUSKiAwmqIJxpn2mQo6KVqlpf8y3cBR2aiM=; b=u0nQttGsrQpwI2D/HF/qU5ERU6o6i2heNppL3osXoTOlizocXT+Xt1zhV6A4cHA6RG ZF/IOBgBwsr8SnOF028WybMq9mSX0DAaXWVWhufNEpcP6FPZaNCX5+iJ4Xm/8j5UHaPq Tpf/XER2o1O9bzGJyO07gACVo37rBkHIWc90+2Rc1Jk9FkreB/22eAjoyhH0yj8fthHU mAzmiwA1TLYRbSe1Ir+XaMKKHY8rZcyzfhGmI2zeKCAN1AmeYFGZGQNhX3RzJOFda8aP E7m/psdtz7OEK2pZBsfsCahsMpP93d3hT5NUTS1WiyvQv+cOHcvyifJ6f9WGXQ+nWhsF pIoQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.75.132 with SMTP id c4mr33844547wjw.80.1436491111806; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.155.202 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUsdABhPyv+1RNu283x5+94wFUi-WnFz5vBBpx0rxRzCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150706184857.15450.31472.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKhHsXH73Uf7_dafmwwDk+CShHHfF7mMhsD1X1aVjXm7pjR8mg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnX50CktRF=Xa9A6DeQWfN5Cmm4R3XkXwok4YQygJysg+g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKhHsXHK-ufE3_ZnC587e_xqdXor0mpSBANz-DmYecRSGq173w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBP+0g++fZ+krwRNHsN4oQ4=ojN_uhK8B=wcUQurC4dzyw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKhHsXFLAN=pzUh=F9R2J=9U6-qwgL4KYuW3LziVsPRrCaGbKA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUsdABhPyv+1RNu283x5+94wFUi-WnFz5vBBpx0rxRzCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 20:18:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKhHsXG4=Yzch-1eR0g5fokydpZvaAVyHJG6cg4OtcmBdQaf7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bb04b7c713e68051a7b26d2"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/RKuXS24i7fdmwEymqGFF-JaxsY8>
Cc: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-johnston-dispatch-osrtp-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:18:34 -0000

Martin,

That makes perfect sense.  I'll change it in the next version to fail the
session if the key agreement fails.

- Alan -

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 8 July 2015 at 11:42, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was on the fence about this one.  Agree that it shouldn't happen for
> > DTLS-SRTP or ZRTP, but I could imagine it happening for certain MIKEY
> modes.
> > Should that really fail the whole session?
>
> At the point that you have established that both peers support a
> common baseline, accepting downgrade from that baseline removes any of
> the benefit that an opportunistic upgrade provided.  An attacker that
> can't attack your signaling now has a chance to downgrade you.
>
> I've no good information on what MIKEY mode might fail and how, but
> that seems like a problem you could address specifically without
> weakening other options.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email