Re: [MMUSIC] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-mmusic-latching-04

[Dan Wing <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
> 
> On 4/1/14 11:42 AM, "Dan Wing" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>>> The draft suggests use of SRTP for authenticating media which does
>>>> resolve the security issues (from a privacy/confidentiality
>>>> perspective). 
>>> 
>>> I was more concerned with the DoS aspect.
>> 
>> The DoS aspect of authenticating incoming SRTP packets to the SBC?
> 
> The DoS aspect that is described in the paragraph Emil quoted below.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> That's part of section 5:
>>>> 
>>>> Naturally, SRTP [RFC3711] would help mitigate such threats and should
>>>> be used independently of HNT.  For example, in cases where end-to-end
>>>> encryption is used it would still be possible for an attacker to
>>>> hijack a session despite the use of SRTP and perform a denial of
>>>> service attack.  However, media integrity would not be compromised.
>>>> 

Sorry, I read it again and I'm still not clear on the concern.  Could you restate or rephrase.


> 
>>> I think something like the following might capture the
>>> situation better:
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> Due to the security issues presented in Section 5, the latching
>>> mechanism
>>> is considered inappropriate for general use on the Internet unless all
>>> security considerations are taken into account and solved.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> Due to the security issues presented in Section 5, the latching
>>> mechanism
>>> is considered inappropriate for general use on the Internet, and in
>>> controlled environments unless all security considerations are taken
>>> into
>>> account and solved.
>> 
>> "General use on the Internet" and "in controlled environments" are 100%
>> of all networks, so perhaps simplifying to:
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Due to the security issues presented in Section 5, the latching
>> mechanism
>> is considered appropriate only when all security considerations are
>> taken into
>> account and solved.
> 
> I think the text in the -04 is preferable to this, as it is more specific.
> 
> I would be interested in others' thoughts on the text I proposed above.

Could we at least eliminate the double negatives ("inappropriate ... unless")?

-d


> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>