Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-uks-03

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Bo,

I've updated the combined review PR:
https://github.com/martinthomson/sdp-uks/pull/9

With just the changes discussed:
https://github.com/martinthomson/sdp-uks/pull/9/commits/82645026faa84cd1124ba2dcfda07f341175d364

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, at 01:29, Bo Burman wrote:
> Thanks, I believe that addresses almost all of my concerns (see also inline).
> 
> Just a final nit for section 4.1 (also listed in the below);
> "...Once the second session completes, Mallory might cause DTLS packets
> > sent by Norma to Patsy to be dropped.  It is likely that these DTLS packets will
> > be discarded by Patsy as Patsy will already have a successful DTLS connection
> > established."
> [BoB] I think there can still be confusion what you mean with "Once the 
> second session completes"; suggest changing to "Once the second session 
> is established", if that was the intention.
> Also, a couple of sentences before "Though Patsy...", there's one too 
> many "is complete" in this sentence: "Once signaling is complete on a 
> session, ostensibly between Mallory and Norma, is complete."
> 
> Cheers,
> /Bo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: den 1 mars 2019 07:04
> > To: Bo Burman <[e-mail]>; mmusic <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-uks-03
> > 
> > Thanks for reviewing Bo,
> > 
> > I've got the changes I've made up at
> > https://github.com/martinthomson/sdp-uks/pull/7
> > 
> > The changes look like a lot, but that is mostly because of some reordering of
> > text.  I've reworded a few things to improve clarity.  I appreciate having a
> > new set of eyes on this.  I find I tend to miss places where the text assumes
> > too much prior knowledge.
> > 
> > I'll put a second PR up for Flemming's review shortly.  That will stack on top of
> > this one.
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019, at 00:23, Bo Burman wrote:
> > > Hi Martin,
> > >
> > > I've now also reviewed this and have a set of comments and questions,
> > > after taking Magnus' comments and your suggested edits in response to
> > > that into account:
> > >
> > > Section 2.1:
> > > * In bullet 2, "complete communications" is slightly unclear (more so
> > > if "complete" is used in other contexts further down in the text). Do
> > > you with "complete" mean "accept", or perhaps "accept setting up"?
> > 
> > Yes, I can see how this could be confusing. Reworded to:
> > 
> > "2. No entity will successfully establish a session with a peer unless they are
> >    willing to participate in a session with that peer."
> [BoB] OK, good.
> 
> > 
> > > * Don't understand what is meant with "...second condition..."; is it
> > > bullet #2, or is it referring to "...joining two separate sessions"?
> > 
> > Bullet 2, but see below.
> > 
> > > * Also don't really understand in what way that second condition is
> > > "not necessary"; to limit the attacker capabilities (related to bullet
> > > #2), for the attacker to join two sessions, or something else like
> > > "for the attack to succeed"?
> > >
> > > * Just to confirm, does "removing this constraint" refer to removing
> > > use of an identity binding?
> > 
> > Does this make more sense?
> > 
> > "Systems that rely on strong identity bindings, such as those defined in
> > {{WEBRTC}} or {{!SIP-ID}}, have a different threat model, which admits the
> > possibility of attack by an entity with access to the signaling channel.
> > Attacks under these conditions are more feasible as an attacker is assumed
> > to be able to both observe and modify signaling messages."
> [BoB] Yes, that's much better.
> 
> > 
> > > Section 3:
> > > * Is the "victim" of the first paragraph the same or another victim
> > > compared to the one mentioned in the next paragraph?
> > >
> > > * Is "another entity of the attacker's choice" also to be considered a victim?
> > 
> > Yes, there are really two victims here, so I've reworded to use first victim and
> > second victim.
> > 
> > "An attacker causes an
> > identity binding to be created that binds an identity they control to the
> > fingerprint of a first victim.
> > 
> > "An attacker can thereby cause a second victim to believe that they are
> > communicating with an attacker-controlled identity, when they are really
> > talking to the first victim.  The attacker only needs to create an identity
> > assertion that covers a certificate fingerprint of the first victim."
> [BoB] OK
> 
> > 
> > > * The last paragraph in section 3, just before section 3.1 "The same
> > > technique..." seems a bit misplaced, after text talking about a
> > > solution. Should it perhaps be moved just before the paragraph "The
> > > problem..." in section 3? Or, is this "same technique" referring to
> > > what is described in section 4?
> > 
> > Yes, this was a little light.  I've moved it up with the attack synopsis.
> > 
> > "A variation on the same technique can be used to cause both victims to both
> > believe they are talking to the attacker when they are talking to each other.
> > In this case, the attacker performs the identity misbinding once for each
> > victim."
> [BoB] OK
> 
> > 
> > > Section 4:
> > > * First sentence, "similar attack"; similar to what?
> > 
> > Yeah, that lost context.  How about:
> > 
> > "Even where the integrity of session signaling can be relied upon, an attacker
> > might still be able to create a session where there is confusion about the
> > communicating endpoints by substituting the fingerprint of a communicating
> > endpoint."
> [BoB] OK
> 
> > 
> > > Section 4.1:
> > > * Believe it would be helpful for the reader to better understand why
> > > "Mallory has no real interest in seeing that session complete"
> > 
> > The next sentence is intended to explain this point: Mallory needs Patsy to
> > maintain her end of the communications, lest Norma believe that the session
> > is broken.
> > 
> > > * Same sentence, does "session complete" mean "session setup
> > complete"?
> > > I first interpreted "complete" as "conclude" in the meaning "terminate"