IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Fri, 09 September 2011 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 9FD1C21F86C1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.655
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.321, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 VeFqFeFvSi4V for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF87521F86A4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz33.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz33.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.97]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p89IsGDu011958 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:54:16 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1315594456; bh=6MOIlJi/HtQIhX+/Is0ja677s0U=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=ga2KLLxDVvyFWP5WaBWLIWz3KnCgW0TsvAJKoL80WuJktwuSpe/9c30Z9cTnhbSt8 NTyA8ZwbBHF9lADxEK6EA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=vGxDvN1UCT0aKS0Ni/ltT94SiSCY6iYSkVSevxTMR4v2ihDiBW57BJy8jTO4dstDe UZJhGTs5tkANfwsgmNMxg==
Received: from yxm34 (yxm34.prod.google.com [10.190.4.34]) by wpaz33.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p89IrYuI016393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:54:15 -0700
Received: by yxm34 with SMTP id 34so3334381yxm.25 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=czYvCWdoGZIgShRPO11Ac1Gl1mTWYXSfij2ZY8uh7q4=; b=ZqPuPBjLv+fQ/OzzpGHu+cbFnm8+BtFI9XqI6t/W+bJFduIFdE7bwG7Vnb6g1wi1J3 HLvKIQ9Egh3/9/N8y0Cw==
Received: by 10.42.134.2 with SMTP id j2mr1326154ict.149.1315594450308; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.134.2 with SMTP id j2mr1326144ict.149.1315594450204; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.36.10 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOdP6cAqBoiSV-Vdv1_EK3DfgnMamT3t3ccjDOMfELfBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF6BE2@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E540FE2.7020605@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106423F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <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>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:53:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2ZCMYXzO36qcUuxpeWHR7aLz9cO=M233xY0WY9V_KZpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba6e8dbadf76c704ac86b379"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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 18:52:26 -0000

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Matthew Kaufman
> <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:
> > On 9/9/11 10:47 AM, Alan Johnston wrote:
> >>
> >>   The default will be SRTP - this can be
> >> expressed in SDP without CapNeg.  Should the RTCWEB clients choose to
> >> instead negotiate RTP, then this could be done with a second SDP
> >> Offer/Answer exchange.
> >
> > I believe you've just designed a downgrade vulnerability.
>
> 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.
>

We can of course expose the encryption state to the application so that it
can decide if it wants to proceed with/warn about the downgrade to plain old
RTP.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email