Re: [Rum] RUE client credentials

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

Ever since I’ve been working on this doc, the cert was for mutual auth of the user, instead of username and password.  

We get to use the IETF’s best practice here.  Do we require a RUM device to support mutual auth, or not?  We’re always going to support username and password for authentication.
We get to decide what else.

Brian

> On Aug 28, 2019, at 9:47 AM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 8/27/19 3:32 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>> Getting back to this, sorry for the delay.
>>> On Aug 12, 2019, at 3:40 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 8/7/19 5:14 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>>>> Working on these comments.  I submitted a new version (-01)
>>>> I edited the doc to say the client cert is provisioned.  Given that it’s provisioned by the entity that the provides the server, do I need to say anything else about validating the cert?
>>> 
>>> I think we need to examine what the goal is here, and whether it is being achieved. I don't think enough is said to decide.
>>> 
>>> This client cert mechanism was first added way back when (2015 I think). IIRC, the motivation was because the providers wanted to restrict access to RUE *implementations* that have passed interoperability testing, in order to reduce the problems of dealing with buggy implementations or attackers.
>> I think you are confusing validating an implementation from authenticating a user.  The notion of mutual auth with a per-device cert is completely separate from some notion of “signing” an implementations code.
> 
> No. You can argue that the client cert mechanism in not an appropriate mechanism for this, but it was the intent when the mechanism was proposed.
> 
> I can see how this might be confused if you weren't there at the time. And perhaps the thinking about it has evolved since it was first included. I wasn't party to what happened during 2016-18.
> 
> IIUC the providers still want this - a way to screen out RUE *implementations* that have not passed their testing. However, I don't know how to achieve that goal. And I'm inclined to think that it is an unreasonable expectation. It is akin to web site operators asking for a way to screen out any browser implementations that they haven't already tested against.
> 
>> We can decide we don’t want the option of having mutual auth.
> 
> Clearly there is need for some mechanism to securely associate a RUE with an account at the provider and a phone number. And this needs to work with devices that are persistently connected. If a RUE suffers a power or network outage that is restored in the middle of the night then it should be able to reconnect without a user login so that it can be available for incoming calls.
> 
> That was intended to be covered by passwords. But care must be taken to secure those.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul