Re: [rtcweb] Consent alternative

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Wed, 22 January 2014 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578DB1A0179 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:01:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yc9ekHkNWrYi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:01:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C502E1A013A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:01:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1528; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390410083; x=1391619683; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=vzO0kjfHTxHV3hyiwqHwpKlpMurminCIwTb6wvxkh8Q=; b=EToluV/1IULk4IlASd+oKZC4DEa7c4hpJynlUXkAK7kRH2TvpmqyKd80 9PQ1T6felyjJs4QCf0M10ZnhLfEePG15m4YKkKY4/fQwnxU5pDkBSOkzB GZXfoGx6O+gwlV6VtEeomzh7mqsHNaOIUXavIPH5R3wM1xCT/kJQpi6AQ 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMFAAb531KtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABbgwyBDoJ+uGEYfhZ0giUBAQEEIxFFDAYBCBEEAQEBAgIGHQMCBB8RFAEICQEEDgUIh2kDEaZQlkcNhVYXgSmLP4FjMQ2CaTWBFASWNo5JhTuDLYIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,700,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="14709040"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2014 17:01:23 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0MH1Nf2002773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:01:23 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.227]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:01:22 -0600
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Consent alternative
Thread-Index: Ac8Xk5Cl1FAR6HeMRgiKRnIwy0Q/Bw==
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:01:22 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428F30C@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.76.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consent alternative
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 22 Jan 2014 17:01:25 -0000

Hi Martin,

Please see inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:11 PM
> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> Cc: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal); Cullen Jennings (fluffy);
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consent alternative
> 
> On 22 January 2014 13:29, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> <tireddy@cisco.com> wrote:
> > If we consider B attacker is also capable of sniffing packets on wire,
> > DTLS heartbeat does not have any benefit over STUN consent because B
> > can sniff the DTLS heartbeat request sent by A and generate response.
> 
> This is not correct, but not really important either.  DTLS ensures that an on-
> path attacker is unable to observe or insert packets.  If B is on-path and able
> to read signaling, it can return STUN consent.
> But we've already determined that on-path attackers aren't interesting when
> it comes to DoS.

I am still referring to off-path attacker only who can sniff packets and spoof IP address but cannot modify or consume packets.

-Tiru.