Re: [rtcweb] Security analysis of RTCWEB

Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 16 January 2012 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.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 2055221F860D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:51:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 0qk22BElUp6Q for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:51:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD44F21F860B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q0GHpaTg024866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:51:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q0GHpavP024166 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:51:36 -0600
Received: from [135.222.134.168] (USMUYN0L055118.mh.lucent.com [135.222.134.168]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q0GHpamG019965; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:51:36 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4F1463A8.7010201@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:51:36 -0500
From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CAErhfrwu322=HTS0JZhum9EGfb73KmYS6CU_KMESyzEWhtvg2w@mail.gmail.com> <4F0CAC8C.8010203@wonderhamster.org> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C6538049202074ABD3A@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01DCF907@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfkejnU2rTe-FibUVxTrRS9SivkhGXB5eK+FhD8Vu6iTMA@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01DCF9FC@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfn07bS58B+4ZyzRTnO4LCpw1e96dnqpSM+TT1y3QG2Zwg@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01DCFBC1@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <CAOJ7v-20+yL7r+_ODx_czHTiujXZZWESaZRB7MQjhvScg3RFtw@mail.gmail.com> <4F0DFD0B.2000009@jesup.org> <4F0E125D.8000605@jesup.org> <A1B638D2082DEA4092A268AA8BEF294D193F92BE22@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4F103D86.2040005@alvestrand.no> <A1B638D2082DEA4092A268AA8BEF294D193F92C293@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <BLU152-W31FF186875A96D3A7ABAF993830@phx.gbl> <CABcZeBPL8iWtUn7CbqUZVua7tdRfDA2aFa6Cr1tXv2jVN548ow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPL8iWtUn7CbqUZVua7tdRfDA2aFa6Cr1tXv2jVN548ow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Security analysis of RTCWEB
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
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: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:51:39 -0000

Exactly!

On 1/16/2012 12:31 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> ...
> 2. There's no technical reason why the IdP-based approach detailed in
> Appendix A can't cover the ICE candidates as well. Indeed, it's natural
> to have it cover as much of the message as possible.