Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Fri, 09 September 2011 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.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 AB83221F889A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.926
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.327, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 1IRyKBKW57ET for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C528021F891D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so10730667pzk.18 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LUX7D27ibbDbag+j8SvwYjyAsXxJafF9BULK9yevePk=; b=J1kvWXpjLKcTf0+t6zm9tQo/4TrTi6w/3z2vEN5DogzyT0QLkh8lUCJCGsQskvsqye gLFxp5tntnMhmtA2/+aVQZhCQpbcNkRiOAGn6ZfE7aYQBRjhMLCrmU00mvXpg7kyw0vC X7mDXmMDoFmU4JQYv9S4cuZLisk9N66qy0f/g=
Received: by 10.68.55.100 with SMTP id r4mr1811527pbp.124.1315605631645; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] ([70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e8sm22665810pbc.8.2011.09.09.15.00.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E6A8CF5.2030801@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:02:29 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E6595E7.7060503@skype.net> <4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F086B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E666926.8050705@skype.net> <43A0D702-1D1F-4B4E-B8E6-C9F1A06E3F8A@edvina.net> <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7020E64DC@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> <E4EC1B17-0CC4-4F79-96DD-84E589FCC4F0@edvina.net> <4E67C3F7.7020304@jesup.org> <BE60FA11-8FFF-48E5-9F83-4D84A7FBE2BE@vidyo.com> <4E67F003.6000108@jesup.org> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233E8554C@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC8230339CA68F054@BE235.mail.lan> <CAOJ7v-2u0UuNXh7bzmZFwiSucbsh=Ps=C3ZM5M3cJrXRmZgODA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKhHsXHXCkNdjtpxCSCk+ABbtxY15GEgouE6X6-sn-LqhnidQw@mail.gmail.com> <4E6A56D4.2030602@skype.net> <CABcZeBOdP6cAqBoiSV-Vdv1_EK3DfgnMamT3t3ccjDOMfELfBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKhHsXFdU1ZaKQF8hbsOxwTS-_RfmFqQhgzGe=K4mRp+wz+_nQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E6A81EC.3080002@jesup.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E6A81EC.3080002@jesup.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]
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: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:58:36 -0000

On 09/09/2011 02:15 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 9/9/2011 3:23 PM, Alan Johnston wrote:
>> Ekr is correct.  If we allow RTP, which I think is a mistake, then
>> there is always a downgrade attack.
>
> Yes, that's true.  The same issue was involved in the best-effort-srtp 
> draft, which unfortunately
> was dropped because CapNeg would "solve" it.  (For historical note, 
> it's still not "solved"
> because CapNeg support is >>>> more complex than best-effort-srtp and 
> not generally deployed,
> and I doubt ever will be ala SDPng (though I'm not close to status on 
> CapNeg.)
>
> Hmmm.  A real downgrade attack requires that the signalling be 
> compromised.  I wonder if there
> are characteristics of a webrtc transaction that could help avoid this 
> sort of attack (for example,
> a secondary way out-of-scope here for the app to know ahead of time if 
> the target will need to
> be downgraded).  Or some way for the service to vouch for the 
> downgrade (i.e. wasn't a MITM).
> You have to trust the service, but in this case you're doing so to 
> this degree anyways.
>
>> My point was that if we must support insecure media, we could avoid
>> the complexity of CapNeg by not requiring a single pass non-secure
>> media negotiation.
>
> There is another option.  I talked about services that wanted to 
> support PSTN  could decide if they
> were willing to support a downgrade.  The application could know it's 
> calling a PSTN gateway and
> if it does know that, avoid a media gateway by not offering encrypted 
> media.
>
> I see a significant use-case for some services will be calling PSTN 
> numbers and services, much
> as it is now for VoIP.
> Yes, a bunch of new non-legacy services wouldn't use/want it.  But the 
> app for a PSTN-using service
> could specifically allow it.
>
> So the question comes down to what's the advantage to using 
> unencrypted RTP?
> 1) No media gateway needed.  This is the big one.  Saves on $$$, saves 
> on delay (sometimes a lot),
>     may save on complexity in a PBX type of situation.
>     But is there an issue due to ICE requirements?  If those can't be 
> turned off safely too, that kills this
>     whole discussion I think.


The ICE toggle already exists. Perhaps you meant non-media in the 
insecure audio-only state? Also known as high-fidelity.


> 2) Debug/etc tools work better with RTP.  Not important.
> 3) May simplify/improve some E911 cases.  Might be important; likely not.
>
> So, effectively it comes down to "is advantage 1 worth the 
> complexity/risk?"  Anyone want to defend that
> case?

The virtual "stateless" driver supposedly doesn't exist unless you want 
to pass DAE only for CapNeg and rely on object recognition and painful 
convex optimizations.

Again, shape is reliable, not a risk. Do you let the federated-servers 
know these traffic-shapes?


>
>> - Alan -
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Eric Rescorla<ekr@rtfm.com>  wrote:
>>> Unless I'm missing something, if you (a) support an insecure mode 
>>> and (b) allow
>>> negotiation of insecure vs. secure, there's not really any way to
>>> avoid a downgrade
>>> issue; the attacker can always pretend not to support security and 
>>> how do you
>>> know better? Obviously, it helps if you can negotiate the use or 
>>> non-use of
>>> media security over a secure-ish signaling channel, but that doesn't 
>>> reduce
>>> the threat from the signaling service.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> -Ekr
>>>
>


-- 
--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant