Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC-SIP interop: and why SDES-SRTP is a need

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 05 April 2012 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 85F0021F872E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 pV7v6AkUyeKF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDE721F8747 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iazz13 with SMTP id z13so2399741iaz.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=/OyBNP47IF252jK6Cu/bQAXj8LW+4S+6IZHi4KT939A=; b=o3ZU93ZDksknBWRzY4sHqXLzpV19K30DPWe7Sp/E+86JivxE8jpjcHaPH8Nnl5NmeW V94o2AwkJGihcyH+hWxfRumSQ7CTh02Q5CzBcnzURRRQ0rBt4t8Ld9PFlVqoSBvgI1BK NUyA/ziB5h2LAnV69v5oSzu7mNqmFzXPUyir2mITyZOE7qTZvRwqOKj9L8LqN5OYxqTW VQp7u9zXR18Dq/IRNcNxO+5ut8te41FleQb1ErCBgcxM5rCccJAuW+iNvHjPv5N53tY2 p4q2di4eQuvn41OA6evLc+VPTDHkjPzM+RbE0VsTTMI9d0Nj/aKSzo8rnnOHfkSfrNyi PDAw==
Received: by 10.42.156.74 with SMTP id y10mr2052662icw.57.1333643412293; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v1sm3666191pbk.10.2012.04.05.09.30.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so1645370pbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.191.69 with SMTP id gw5mr8397929pbc.141.1333643410460; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.6.67 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfmpVRHw4B8TVyt4GNVkktgVz_nQUzFOye9zCJ2hvdY6Rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfmz6tgm9WF3KWEK5qwaBGADKFyit=egB36zkjZXNKdeHw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnA8_ntYd5f935P_E6vvMwjrzt+j6UhB9vjmo6h-RzfPA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxsxrDdsoV18KB1gZSsUBPno-k2zs4E2FTUaoUBdXfh5yA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE6kErhTOFP1qna-OKRmJzM=Rssc0UEXTyDgSyKmh2AM+PuviA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuuC1q9uCnREqi_-i0unT=6Uza+oYsCWtanbSjmSi5_DQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=qo4uWjSBx6F5PmN_vqtbqYzQ9e5igqe_YJPKj0BHQvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxu6n_yDAtsy9_pkcGyA8t15y3pY4sQoYmwoPnoL=8_=cA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfngqJLRdNPsyBtVMouD_yh+3FiUNAWBuq3vb8BbbjgTqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxu+gAS2HGD9HNfSRUX-HMWjzmb6++tv0VWX5s0Ldzqz0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmpVRHw4B8TVyt4GNVkktgVz_nQUzFOye9zCJ2hvdY6Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:30:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsMhOR9wmKGc6w6SuobH=+dXqTAUPRMYzE8cw_mP0qPWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb208dcbcce4204bcf10d81
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmZ/sQ5fDfpa9MYAC2J52hXJ3d7rYQiZ4nC6zMJ83Vfq8v1lwqbQBIpBgGAFfsxYt4GJmBP
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC-SIP interop: and why SDES-SRTP is a need
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, 05 Apr 2012 16:30:13 -0000

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2012/4/5 Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>:
> It's possible, sure. First packets are handled in user space, and
> later go to kernel space with conntrack rules. It's real and there are
> two RTP proxies doing that: MediaProxy and irtpProxy.
>
> I do not believe either one of them does ICE-Lite to RTP. As far as I
know, they are both RTP-to-RTP only.


> > My proposal (DTLS-SRTP by default,
> > SDES-SRTP from HTTPS sessions or RTP from HTTP session if enabled) got
> > ignored as well. This at least inline with current HTTP(S) security
> model.
>
> So you proposed allowing plain RTP and now just a new DTLS-XXXX-SRTP
> is valid for you? :)
>

I am still proposing the same thing -- some new protocol instead of
DTLS-SRTP, which does public key key exchange, and SDES-SRTP from HTTPS
with RTP from HTTP if enabled. This should allow the widest possible
interop without forcing a security model on them. I do not belive this
compromises security since it allows the application developer pick the
security model they want (new and most secure, old but interoperable, or
none at all).
______________
Roman Shpount