Re: [rtcweb] Consent alternative

"Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <> Thu, 05 December 2013 04:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F71B1AE173 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:43:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OJ2GQF-Mc8D0 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:43:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FA41AE1C9 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:43:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2280; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386218601; x=1387428201; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=H8V+60DvflOK2CFw8c03fbU7mXkNlkhpy7ZcFoUGyxE=; b=DDCkK+qOA1vXGVIB7J4F7nzIpn/8dxHNCClkYLuL/yYDxlHPF9u6X069 zwwfWVd4z0iHzi7H/7+GwD0H4Xwwm2CjEOyZVEF2TyNyv8rhpFC0bN993 U/fN2Q+48cCmOIJ/DPCwXkYLTUof1HClrWTb1CvW8IZuYa7j0sYUzqRtK U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,830,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="289569263"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2013 04:43:20 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB54hKpQ005810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:43:20 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:43:20 -0600
From: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <>
To: Martin Thomson <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Consent alternative
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 04:43:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consent alternative
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 04:43:25 -0000

Apparently, we are talking about different problems. Perhaps, a diagram showing the sequence of steps that lead to the attack you are describing might help me understand it.

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Martin Thomson []
|Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:08 AM
|To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
|Cc:; Magnus Westerlund; Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
|Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consent alternative
|On 3 December 2013 21:08, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
|<> wrote:
|> |I think that you have missed the point here. The point is that A and
|> |B share a DTLS connection, and B uses ICE to convince A to send
|> |packets for that connection to C.
|> Can you describe that in terms of a real-world use case? I don't see how that is different from a
|3PCC scenario where the 3PCC (e.g a call center agent) talks to both A and C, and transfers A to C
|(aka full-consult transfer).
|I'm not describing a use case, I'm describing an attack.  A 3PCC
|transfer should result in a new DTLS connection.  That's a completely
|different scenario.
|> |All this requires is that B is able to spoof the source address of
|> |packets to appear as coming from C.
|> B doesn't have to spoof anything at all -- for the ICE connectivity check to succeed b/w A and C, B
|just needs to send A's ice-ufrag and ice-pwd to C and vice versa.
|Yes, B does have to spoof something.  If B's goal is to cause A to
|send packets to C without consent from C (or, more precisely, even
|when C initially consents, then ceases to consent), then spoofing is