Re: [rtcweb] SRTP requirement - wiretapping (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 09 November 2011 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 8687A21F8C6B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:10:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.94
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.94 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 zFnfTkYmKoiA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:10:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB1D21F8B9D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:10:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vcbfk1 with SMTP id fk1so1615069vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:10:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.29.9 with SMTP id f9mr4898664vdh.30.1320847824060; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:10:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.118.132 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:09:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.173]
In-Reply-To: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FE6@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <8A61D801-D14D-408B-9875-63C37D0CC166@acmepacket.com> <CABw3bnPE=OY_h5bM7GA6wgrXiOBL8P4J0kw1jLv-GSpHAbg=Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNqdkh8u=gwOvKfDCQA7rXdAyQkfaM1r2Sx10787btP6A@mail.gmail.com> <B10FEFF6-0ADC-4DB1-83BB-50A11C65EC35@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBNSXtim_VqzqAd8Z-u4zWSjaYmsVZPN=7sDYkJsgtRAHA@mail.gmail.com> <4EB7E6A5.70209@alvestrand.no> <F8003BA9-BCD8-4F02-B514-8B883FF90F91@acmepacket.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349D81@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <4EB9ACF5.80805@alvestrand.no> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349F60@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <CAD6AjGTn2WPaVQh01y-PVYZtpVYKopocqzQBSEMQadozjEd-Tw@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FE6@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:09:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNvGVWgNiLcP9=n+hnfvV1P4_uF1+Q2oC6dwgya80BwGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "&lt,rtcweb@ietf.org&gt," <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SRTP requirement - wiretapping (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)
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, 09 Nov 2011 14:10:31 -0000

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi
<pravindran@sonusnet.com> wrote:
> Cameron,
>
>
>
> I guess that we are in the same w.r.t IETF privacy policy and it is main
> reason, I take back my comment #2. But, Please look into comment #1 for
> Enterprise WebRTC application wherein SRTP is not required to be mandated.
>

Partha,

I don't understand what resource you are conserving here by avoiding
multiple encryption.

Even if we stipulate that the enterprise network is secure (which as
Cameron has suggested, is often not the case even when people believe it is),
the actual cost to encrypt the data on the endpoints is quite low,
especially when compared to the added complexity cost of trying to make the
(extremely difficult) determination of whether whatever network encryption
is in place is sufficient to protect your call. Better to just encrypt all
the time.

-Ekr