IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Tunnelling DTLS in SDP

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 05 April 2016 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 0178312D940 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GntAAO3Y6ttN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1BDB12D936 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id ui10so13637896igc.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 06:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=sSJrIQR8TOK8t4Fy60ZUywkBkaEELPwmtwo5KZL3Wdw=; b=AsTnYLMPZKROf5W8c6VtbpchNHWGh37JqHPc8H+2PZb45P4EgkP4XVbOPL5JVYARg3 fJEDIsBpTxiovc3GMNBe3xgNO0UT9UMJhbRD8EQ/TUjMW4gJCTtgFYFykRpIOi73eaOz ER4qe+/16VDT0OKnzCGXtTJGQsujzyxcrLuxwi0q1GkZhpEHOlX8DbAuxKGz/qX7xn0V i4Ce06Ozi4ifVRfQpnKOLGNqgMgWaS5g/yvU4tAhffYJmw1u6mXv81W+oMMjPZ7fdk5e 1jhkdy4Zg0xo6UiCDr/s9CGPjsdhpWFXxtdU7txA6TdFEjJmqrzVr/gNC7U9Tb0vEsfc LPCQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=sSJrIQR8TOK8t4Fy60ZUywkBkaEELPwmtwo5KZL3Wdw=; b=jYuhURLfOmGby2DhkesYxINZo1AJ6MAHrOpRDGPhlIJtFaBa1dHz0V55Kb615ttmIs S77S1XhlQZ0bgF4yIy8wh4W7QvpbmKpkFtO65ZwPqHkHGjjMz4GJ7z1VSE3FUUmKHzM7 LGIYjws5I/s+vKAQT5dBwWrrZVxUTtJRuJpvg4i4zcm8DhfvhhNLNSOlddflQVbqVpI2 n2fysmeRm/D9YRNyjtsR5sX7eRQuSjBK9ylOnI3XJGpUGsOetPsavqk+nKIw+YcnL0qx 1smXmrC20RW4CDew/5HxwInHpf9OU4hakmlW/K/mc2gfZMUa4lKhNZeIeGqbez/zggZ5 JOoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI/zZnq2TwyPkHtpqCpTofsyI0t0lMYJ9wFqLKWXioZL5fZZvBSwqZu0dETGhy0/A==
X-Received: by 10.50.118.4 with SMTP id ki4mr17833636igb.53.1459862477936; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 06:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com. [209.85.213.173]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id au6sm7594417igc.0.2016.04.05.06.21.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 05 Apr 2016 06:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id g8so13625119igr.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 06:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.18.113 with SMTP id v17mr17340113igd.2.1459862476639; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 06:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.106.194 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <57038B35.8040102@alvestrand.no>
References: <CABcZeBOM1KoXpXFhvjS753EVpsMENWVen3CCdFj8ry36vPH0dg@mail.gmail.com> <57038B35.8040102@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 09:21:16 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsGhKTK8R0sJ7XYfjDGdpX9jvUQnKYQ4LM_tYFOe2Z69A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsGhKTK8R0sJ7XYfjDGdpX9jvUQnKYQ4LM_tYFOe2Z69A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01494ff2575a7c052fbcb88d"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/EsYBSRFERl_CX26xn4kqs6NuYLM>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Tunnelling DTLS in SDP
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:21:31 -0000

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

>
> One SDP twist: If forking happens, it could be treated like any other
> attempt to generate multiple answers to a ClientHello, I think. I'm sure
> it's well defined how to respond to that - it's an obvious attack. Only one
> leg of the fork would ever succeed, I assume.
>

The biggest issue with reusing ClientHello in case of forking would be
reusing client random across multiple connections. Unless I am missing
something, this should be generally safe.

Another issue is what will happen if two DTLS association are established
for a single m= line (i.e. RTCP bundle is not used). Does this mean the
same ClientHello is used for both connection?

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email