Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP
Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 03 May 2012 00:41 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 F103D11E80B1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 17:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ddoubSUp7Di4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 17:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s7.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s7.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6D811E808D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 17:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-DS25 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s7.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 2 May 2012 17:41:41 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.87]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-DS251D322307BC173FD221AE932F0@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: 'Cullen Jennings' <fluffy@iii.ca>
References: <CAD5OKxtSvdu9gMqfb3ptw5aQJt1NZKLJ1UB_vKRWDXCZurD+1w@mail.gmail.com> <BDA69428-93F2-475B-ABBB-5DE539671DD1@iii.ca> <CAD5OKxs+oZj47DrTSnvaLV7-jNEPOkxjZfJuC5F2fo71kB3-4g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxs+oZj47DrTSnvaLV7-jNEPOkxjZfJuC5F2fo71kB3-4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 17:41:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_04C2_01CD288A.D2A99760"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGd9Q8+Ck49nre8TUe0RhTSMNNKdALSPYOxApAzirKW6oeYYA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2012 00:41:41.0820 (UTC) FILETIME=[81FE2FC0:01CD28C5]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP
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, 03 May 2012 00:41:45 -0000
At IETF 83, Dan showed some slides relating to SRTP/RTP gateways that seemed to cover the "extreme legacy" case quite well. In those slides, the "RTCWEB" components were still talking SRTP, so they could be said to be compliant with a "mandatory to implement, mandatory to use" posture. Yet, the circa 2005 IP phone still got to receive and send RTP. Since the "extreme legacy" cases are solvable via gateways, and the performance impact and cost on virtually any new hardware (PC/tablet/mobile) is minimal, it seems to me that making SRTP mandatory to implement and use has little downside. A few years ago, the thought of turning on SRTP by default was a bit scary (mostly because of potential interop issues, not cost). However, today turning it on by default "just works" with minimal performance impact or other hassles (other than occasional interop gremlins). By the time RTCWEB is widely deployed any argument against SRTP will probably be vestigial. Given this, it seems to me that the "right thing" is for SRTP to be mandatory to implement and use, especially if SDES is available, so the likelihood of interoperability will be high. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote: Roman, One comment on this - I think people understand there could be services with no security requirements that could run over RTP, and HTTP, with no identity. But we need to have a secure solution for some other services. The questions is once you have a secure solution, what is the incentive to also support an insecure solution - so far no one has come up with a super compelling story about dealing with the bid down and I suspect that lots of people did not view the overhead of running the secure version as all that high. I suspect that is part of why the decisions went the way it did - basically people agreed we needed a secure solution, and when they considered also having an insecure solution, they saw lots of complications of doing both and not much gain in the insecure solution over the secure solution. Cullen On May 2, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Roman Shpount wrote: > I know there was a consensus call on this list that SRTP shall be used for all the calls in WebRTC, but I still do not understand the justification for this requirement for WebRTC applications delivered over HTTP with no identity. For such scenarios SRTP (even DTLS-SRTP) serves almost no purpose. If application is delivered over HTTP attacker can spoof the entire web site. It is trivial if the attacker is on the communications path. If attacker is seating in the airport using the same network, it can put itself on the communications path using arp cache poisoning. Once the web site is spoofed, any type of man in the middle attack can be implemented. If DTLS-SRTP is used user can detect the attack by checking the key signature, but in reality very few people will do this. > > The main argument to require SRTP everywhere was that it does not break anything. But neither would naming all the API methods in High Elfish. Either requirement does not break things, but make working with WebRTC harder then it should. At the same time both of those requirements are completely unjustified. > > Furthermore, assumption on this list that most of the WebRTC use would be peer-to-peer communications between browsers with all the rest of the communication modes, such as calling automated services or PSTN being insignificant. I simply do not agree to this point of view. I expect that communication with automated services, such as video greeting cards or voice blogging, would be a significant portion of WebRTC user base. If such automated service is deployed as a plain HTTP web site, it should be able to communicate with web browsers using RTP. SRTP in such case would serve no purpose. > > Finally, requiring secure communications for everything is going against the way most of the web works. Most of it is not secured and only requires secure communications when secure (HTTPS) web site is accessed. I think it should be the same for WebRTC, with DTLS-SRTP required when connected to HTTPS web site and plain RTP allowed when connected to plan HTTP. > _____________ > Roman Shpount > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP jesse
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP Roman Shpount
- [rtcweb] SAVPF history (Re: Final plea about SRTP) Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] SAVPF history (Re: Final plea about … Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] SAVPF history (Re: Final plea about … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] SAVPF history (Re: Final plea about … Randell Jesup