Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
Max Jonas Werner <mail@makk.es> Thu, 27 June 2013 17:42 UTC
Return-Path: <mail@makk.es>
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 A80FA21F9E92 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_111=0.6]
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 zxNU0yWaSla4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lupus.uberspace.de (lupus.uberspace.de [95.143.172.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 67FF921F9E94 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4483 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2013 17:42:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.20?) (31.18.98.41) by lupus.uberspace.de with SMTP; 27 Jun 2013 17:42:03 -0000
Message-ID: <51CC796A.5030507@makk.es>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:42:02 +0200
From: Max Jonas Werner <mail@makk.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
References: <CA+9kkMDnjCNXGV0GU7x6gbbZMf4WiEuVvCRY8_Fix5tmdOB-Kg@mail.gmail.com> <51BAC9BC.6070708@ericsson.com> <94846970-4694-4EC8-AEFA-AEECEE0135AA@oracle.com> <51C02EE8.5070809@ericsson.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841A2C78AD@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAL02cgTFSbYSX7v3q37tsjzaPMshyyBroGWr=qmy-HGm82GJFg@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841A2C7EF8@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAL02cgQMkHu-NqEeScT2ObfknJ+3OjXi7Y=7rUJtqeu3CbewMQ@mail.gmail.com> <8E9D2A9F-3D8B-4480-A85D-320CF30FEAA6@oracle.com> <CAL02cgT3KEb0VB9kz=QCe7Mt3oj5tZvZouFe5-Uy90Cmm0H0dQ@mail.gmail.com> <30761469-F5CC-4858-8D40-4632A7D5A682@oracle.com> <CAL02cgSS1e5zH2YRh4uTb8qxXF5Ng5y8RxRw-bGP5xmQLkiQ+Q@mail.gmail.com> <529DCF4E-2A8B-475F-8CCE-7E2ABC72EFB1@oracle.com> <2C6DDF0C-201D-4CA3-8EB0-F14B! 8A2D5758@cisco.com> < CA2956C0-56B7-47E9-9EF4-9D639F8B8AD6@oracle.com> <12C17BE5-2302-48E9-A745-5B7265E83E8E@cisco.com> <012d01ce7357$39226ef0$ab674cd0$@co.in>
In-Reply-To: <012d01ce7357$39226ef0$ab674cd0$@co.in>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2MXVDNUSTMMFEFWAIVHXJ"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:42:11 -0000
Partha, On 27.06.2013 18:56, Parthasarathi R wrote: > Dan, > > I'm wondering whether any identity is mandatory all for WebRTC session. I'm > asking this query as lot of WebRTC demo works well without any identity. For > example: it is possible to pass URL like > https://apprtc.appspot.com/?r=06095338 and ask the participant to join the > session. whether an application makes use of the identity API is up to the developer as far as I unterstand the specs. This is why http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#identity states: "WebRTC offers and answers (and hence the channels established by RTCPeerConnection objects) can be authenticated" I just recently gave a talk on WebRTC security and in the part about identity I stated that anonymity is a very useful tool to ensure user's privacy. That's why the identity services should always be optional. Max >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Dan Wing >> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 11:30 PM >> To: Hadriel Kaplan >> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture >> >> >> On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Hadriel Kaplan >> <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 21, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> We've talked about that one before I think. If jQuery is out to >> get you, it's game over. It's essentially equivalent to a malicious >> web-server, except of course that the operator of the web-server isn't >> intending to be malicious (which is an important distinction). But >> again, not only does jQuery have access to information such as who >> you're talking to and when, it can also redirect your media to a >> gateway of its choosing to terminate the DTLS-SRTP and record it, by >> fiddling with the JSON/SDP stuff. >> >>>> >>>> For the attacker to succeed with the redirection of DTLS-SRTP to a >> server it controls, the attacker would also need to modify the SDP's >> a=fingerprint line which is as trivial as the attacker's other SDP >> modifications. To prevent the attacker from succeeding with such >> modification, we need cryptographic identity (to protect the >> From/To/Date/a=fingerprint and other fields), and need the browser (not >> JS) to verify the identity using an external service (e.g., local disk, >> IdP separate from the web server providing us the (compromised) JS and >> the SDP). While it is true that today we don't have a way today to >> provide that cryptographic identity (RFC4474 does not work, draft-wing- >> rtcweb-identity-media written by me and Hadriel was met with silence) >> DTLS-SRTP creates the foundation to build cryptographic identity which >> can be verified by the browser itself. Such cryptographic identity >> protects from this specific attack, and DTLS-SRTP protects from other >> attacks. >>> >>> I agree - when we have such a thing, using DTLS-SRTP will have much >> more meaning. But (1) there is no such thing yet, and (2) it won't >> make DTLS-SRTP nor DTLS-EKT any stronger than SDES for the SIP-gateway >> scenarios we're talking about, since the DTLS isn't going end-to-end. >> I.e., none of the calls would successfully authenticate using such an >> out-of-band mechanism, even the good ones. >>> >>> [note though I'm not saying DTLS-SRTP is useless today - quite the >> contrary, I hummed in favor of making it MTI back when that was >> decided, and I still think it should be MTI] >> >> Will the existence of SDES prevent WebRTC from building this more >> secure system with strong identity? That is, when we add cryptographic >> identity will that be effective to prevent a bid-down attack from DTLS- >> SRTP to SDES? I am thinking right now that when we add identity we can >> prevent that bid-down, so at that time SDES could become a proper >> second-class citizen. >> >> -d
- [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Vijaya Mandava (vimandav)
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Michael Procter
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Michael Procter
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- [rtcweb] Agenda time request for IETF 87 Berlin Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for IETF 87 Berl… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Max Jonas Werner
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Max Jonas Werner
- Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture Timothy B. Terriberry