Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 26 September 2011 14:49 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 2AEE521F8DD2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
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 E1ojJumdjucS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A0F21F8DD1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so9909582qyk.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.67.196 with SMTP id s4mr4909774qci.192.1317048747778; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z17sm21779524qap.19.2011.09.26.07.52.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6so5456967ywa.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.12.162 with SMTP id z2mr30015936pbb.122.1317048746229; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.55.39 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSmz5T_F+SK2EoBQm6T-iRKp7dd4j8ZAF5JKdbbyomZQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5OKxtNjmWBz92bRuxka7e-BUpTPgVUvr3ahJGpmZ-U5nuPbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSmz5T_F+SK2EoBQm6T-iRKp7dd4j8ZAF5JKdbbyomZQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:52:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvWX0d9w6EHgBAgrSiwHcKOPw5uBE_TGcafHrVWuiJhXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5215f65abbfc004add94e86
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls
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: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:49:46 -0000

PSTN carriers today almost always run SBCs. At the same time I have not seen
an SBC from any major US carrier with firmware newer the 2 years old. I've
never seen an SBC in carrier deployment that currently supports ICE or SRTP.


Bottom line, no carriers currently support ICE or SRTP. If we create the
market requirements for them to support ICE and SRTP, it will take them 3-5
years to add such support. If we have anybody from SBC manufacturing
companies or carriers who can provide evidence to the opposite, I would love
to hear from them. In any case, it would be prudent to provide a way to use
current non-ICE, non-SRTP with RTC.
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 26, 2011 7:30 AM, "Roman Shpount" <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think requiring ICE in RTC is not only unfortunate, it will make it
> impossible to connect to PSTN without media gateway. If we complete this
> specification, and phone carriers decide that there is a business case for
> them to support RTC clients directly, it will take them 3-5 years to
> implement ICE in SBC. From what I've seen major carriers run SBC firmware
> which is normally 2-3 years old. If we add time it takes to implement ICE in
> SBC, plus time it will take PSTN provider to verify and test the feature, we
> are easily looking into 5 year time frame.
> >
> > Since we need to have user confirmation to start a media call anyway, and
> since this is not going to be any different from what SIP clients are
> currently doing, it would make sense to allow a plain non-ICE, non-SRTP
> call.
> >
> > Finally, ICE specification are desinged to interop with non-ICE end
> points. We will need to change ICE to accomplish what you are doing.
> >
>
> Maybe I misundersatnd you, but the PSTN carriers today and in the future
> will always run an SBC because that is their security policy.
>
> Regarding firmware, they react to market needs and timing.
>
> Cb
>
> _____________
> > Roman Shpount
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/22/2011 4:37 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 22, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If so, what is your assumption then regarding ICE? That the SIP nodes
> will support ICE, or that the browser will be allowed to communicate with
> the SIP nodes without enabling ICE?
> >>>
> >>> I see no way of solving the security problems without having ICE or
> something more or less like it. Therefore, I'm working on the assumption
> that it will only work if the SIP side supports ICE, or is front ended by a
> SBC with media GW that does ICE. In the short term, there will be some
> devices that don't do ICE but SIP devices are increasingly having ICE added.
> Particularly SIP devices that are internet facing because the need for NAT
> traversal.
> >>>
> >>> I find requiring ICE to be a very unfortunate assumption to have to
> make - obviously it reduces the number of legacy voip devices WebRTC devices
> can talk to without an SBC but I don't see any way around this limitation.
> Allowing web browsers inside the firewall to send packets to an arbitrary
> address that is inside the firewall with no validation that address speaks
> RTP is not acceptable.
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree we can't solve the security issue with permission to send with
> the
> >> current threat model without ICE or some equivalent.
> >>
> >> There is another option that may help with some of the use cases (I've
> mentioned
> >> this before in the discussion on screensharing, among others).  For a
> number
> >> of the use cases security is an impassible problem with the current
> threat model.
> >> Those use cases generally involve replacing cases where an existing
> desktop
> >> install or plugin was used (webex, screensharing, vnc, SIP softclient,
> Skype, etc).
> >> Those cases all currently involve the user implicitly giving these apps
> total
> >> or close to code that could do pretty much anything on the user's
> computer,
> >> and are also often the "ongoing usage" authentication cases.
> >>
> >> The only mitigating safety of the external app/plugin model is that
> they're typically
> >> signed and go through the platforms software-install procedure,
> cert-showing, UACs, etc.
> >>
> >> Currently people are trying to work out the HTML5 "installed" webapp
> security model;
> >> if that's far enough along we may be able to piggyback off that.   I'm
> looking into it.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Randell Jesup
> >> randell-ietf@jesup.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rtcweb mailing list
> >> rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
>