IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 05 October 2011 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7032E21F8B51 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YGbFMLyP1Er6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snt0-omc4-s49.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc4-s49.snt0.hotmail.com [65.54.51.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047AC21F8B4F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT0-EAS256 ([65.55.90.199]) by snt0-omc4-s49.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:14:50 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [166.205.142.131]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <snt0-eas2567EB3C48B254DA9E07FC693F80@phx.gbl>
References: <4E8B192E.80809@ericsson.com> <CALiegfmnxO+BrfycOmL=hptBFdcEpsLeBn=zsJTX=ivKBBumWw@mail.gmail.com> <BLU152-W139AA2913C1CFFDB50726193FB0@phx.gbl> <BLU152-W2342F5823933FA1F2B9F9C93FB0@phx.gbl> <37C37EE6-3D48-4C77-A025-3207F040572B@cisco.com> <4E8BC56E.40306@skype.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: <4E8BC56E.40306@skype.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:14:44 -0700
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8L1)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2011 03:14:50.0560 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1BF6400:01CC830C]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 03:11:44 -0000

Right, that's the attack I had in mind, but with high bandwidth video.



On Oct 4, 2011, at 7:49 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:

> On 10/4/2011 3:40 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> Could you say more... I'm not following your logic.
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> 
>>> In particular, I'm concerned about vulnerabilities created by multiplexing
>>> audio and video on the same port.  When that is done, the ICE procedure loses
>>> some of its DoS prevention properties.
>>> 
> 
> I think what he's concerned about is that a device might consent (using ICE) to receive audio and unexpectedly receive multiplexed video on the same RTP port.
> 
> Not sure this really matters, as there's not much difference between low-frame-rate low-res video and 16-bit linear stereo PCM at 48 kHz (which might indeed be an audio codec you can choose).
> 
> Matthew Kaufman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email