secdir review of draft-ietf-imapext-sort-19
Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> Wed, 05 March 2008 18:50 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5463A6F38; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:50:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zDcjHq-r9D8d; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A63A3A6F3E; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:50:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 897C53A6BE5; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:50:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EbDkqxLpDNz9; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from leela.webpack.hosteurope.de (leela.webpack.hosteurope.de [217.115.142.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4883F3A6E42; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e181065124.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.181.65.124]); authenticated by leela.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM using esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) id 1JWyhA-0003Yw-0d; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:50:28 +0100
Message-ID: <47CEEBC7.2000907@gondrom.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:51:51 +0100
From: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20060911)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@mit.edu, lisa@osafoundation.org
Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-imapext-sort-19
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711262341530.19701@mint.samweiler.com> <478E17FF.2020501@gmail.com> <47CCD727.7040704@gmail.com> <200803051604.21608.julien.IETF@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <200803051604.21608.julien.IETF@laposte.net>
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org; 1204743031; 32430dce;
Cc: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU, murch@andrew.cmu.edu, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. 0. note: the document expired today 1. editorial COMMENTS: - I ran idnit and received three errors and two warnings. Considering the long life time of this draft this might be natural, but still at least the errors must be resolved. - the document should have a proper TOC and proper page headers and footers. - the document uses a "work in progress" document as a normative(!) reference [UNICASEMAP]. It should be changed to informative or the draft should not proceed to proposed standard until the reference is stable. - additionally a HTML link is cited inside the I-D for the informative reference [THREADING], maybe this reference can be published somewhere more stable too? - in the document are several cases with double blanks between sentences. This is not good and should be removed by the authors or the editor before publication. 2. COMMENT section 3 - REFERENCE refers to a product version ("Netscape Mail and News" versions 2.0 through 3.0) which I would consider bad style or even inappropriate for a proposed standard. Consider the time in the future that this standard might be valid and that people may not recall a specific product name or version. 3. COMMENT on section 3 - ORDEREDSUBJECT A Note refers to former outdated I-D version. I would recommend to remove any reference to outdated and no longer valid I-Ds. 4. COMMENT (some of this may at the discretion of the AD also be a DISCUSS) is section 6 Security Considerations: 4.1. you should not only state the deficiencies of IMAP, but also at least require with a "SHOULD" the authentication of commands and protection of data on the wire via encryption (e.g. TLS). 4.2. you should mention that using sorting by reference/thread can lead to wrong references (trees) if more than one email exists with the same ID (UID/message-sequence/...) and child-messages are grouped to a father-message. An attacker might use the fact that these values are not well protected and the sorting algorithm reaction to such ambiguity to hide messages respectively sorting (relocating) them to a different thread. 4.3. the pre-sorting stripping of the subject of all re and fw headers to identify the base subject (described in section 2.1) may lead to actually loosing the right context (end in the worng sorting thread and/or level) if emails are created where the specified magic letters are legitimate text at the beginning of the subject. For example in a foreign language the text "RE" might not be used for reply but actually have a different real meaning. Best regards, Tobias _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- secdir review of draft-ietf-imapext-sort-19 Tobias Gondrom