Re: [P2PSIP] Question about the use of SAML with P2P SIP

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sun, 24 January 2010 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: p2psip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDC33A6A15 for <p2psip@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:09:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.118
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 J2J7cPMsVyri for <p2psip@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:09:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f192.google.com (mail-yx0-f192.google.com [209.85.210.192]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275ED3A6A14 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:09:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yxe30 with SMTP id 30so517116yxe.29 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:09:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.37.31 with SMTP id k31mr4618525agk.107.1264345795360; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:09:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <b1a97c6e1001232233w7087853yf6dc157968ed6d47@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b1a97c6e1001231205r2bcdf1d5i9fa33862c6c9f9c2@mail.gmail.com> <d3aa5d01001231336r6889b8b9g5b94c8035782b432@mail.gmail.com> <b1a97c6e1001232233w7087853yf6dc157968ed6d47@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:09:55 -0800
Message-ID: <d3aa5d01001240709k16a4a8cboed35ee52e346f178@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: zainab khallouf <zainab.khallouf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: p2psip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Question about the use of SAML with P2P SIP
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:09:57 -0000

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:33 PM, zainab khallouf
<zainab.khallouf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/10, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> It's not clear to me what this would do... P2PSIP already has a pretty clear
>> authentication and authorization structure, so what would SAML bring
>> to the party?
>
>
> As far as I know, these solutions rely mostly on centralized
> authentication authority, or adhoc approaches.
> Using SAML with P2P SIP allows to include a broad category of
> authentication solutions: centralized or decentralized approaches like
> the web of trust approaches, this what I tried to introduce in my
> paper (Trust Management in Peer-to-Peer SIP Using the Security
> Assertion Markup Language).
> The draft (draft-ietf-sip-saml-06.txt) defines a profile SAML to be
> used with SIP, but the daft does not define a profile to be used with
> P2P SIP.

I can't access this article because it's on IEEE Xplor, but I don't really
see how this is going to work. P2P networks start to fall apart rapidly
with significant fractions of malicious nodes. In a WoT system,
you're not going to have any plausible information about the vast
majority of the nodes in the network, so I don't see how this is
going to be secure.

If you submit a draft, I will of course take a look.

-Ekr