Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 15 December 2010 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2853A6FEF; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:14:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AsxTae1GU-yn; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FCF73A7024; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:13:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so1627290qyj.10 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:15:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mLsytRt3vfUc/0WR1vMBmMpsDO65gQXsK7sawWKIdfI=; b=jNfIyrPp+NSiVmOKa76rQUPMhElid6ycRuZRdNtc1BXqB1gRZORklhrVtnIFVtRdZZ OGHG+CsyaqyMSQxZuw5rJd2EFuybfLgk+Rw5j2PF71s7/VzvHG6oNYWFfpP83cf3Clrk RYrwwSZOQzp6aPJo4TI8vMi0fifgRePo+4xCA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=NdXztDGxiR7fhmRNhQuEK+3ZrVsB5UhjD+4jHiNpHcuVqRjEZIlWoE4HD90vIGU1FH BIuuu605PaGIhkQmhGn7NClkX5QMScufl7Rz4EarT+BtLLQX5T5qdNxWukXmS7xe2rUL gONt/aBiIAGJPbWRxjlf8KLpYqj2SrgwAxjs4=
Received: by 10.224.67.147 with SMTP id r19mr5949905qai.324.1292393709689; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:15:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.91.197 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:14:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DE2E71E@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
References: <AANLkTikaFHSYb6cBnqtCm8JYYt=YVbXiqxs083XmkU_o@mail.gmail.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DE2E71E@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 01:14:49 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTin8GmTjxvZj9U-TbvdYMNAPj31sb6Rt3z22ttzp@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Keith Drage <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, iesg@ietf.org, Roni Even <even.roni@huawei.com>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:14:28 -0000

Thanks, that wording looks good.
Donald

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Ali C. Begen (abegen)
<abegen@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Donald,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:47 PM
>> To: secdir@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; Ali C. Begen (abegen); Keith Drage; Roni Even
>> Subject: SecDir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03
>>
>> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
>> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
>> IESG.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> This draft specifies the addition of a new SDP attribute. This
>> attribute does not appear to present any new type of security
>> vulnerability.
>>
>> I believe the Security Considerations section needs a small addition
>> to avoid being too vague. It currently just says "Therefore, as usual
>> adequate security measures are RECOMMENDED ..." without giving any
>> hint as to what those measures are or where to find any. Admittedly,
>> this draft is an update to RFC 5760 and a reasonable non-exclusive
>> list of such measures occurs in that RFC. Nevertheless, I would be
>> much more comfortable if the Security Considerations section wording
>> was augmented so it said "Therefore, adequate security measures, such
>> as those listed in the Security Considerations section of [RFC5760],
>> are RECOMMENDED...".
>
> Based on other reviews and discussing with the AD, we went one step further and the sentence above is replaced with:
>
> "In order to avoid attacks of this sort, the SDP description needs to be integrity protected and provided with source authentication. This can, for example, be achieved on an end-to-end basis using S/MIME RFC5652 when SDP is used in a signaling packet using MIME types (application/sdp). Alternatively, HTTPS RFC2818 or the authentication method in the Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) RFC2974 could be used as well."
>
>> Trivia:
>>
>> The following sentence:
>>    "The formal description of the 'multicast-rtcp' attribute is defined
>>    by the following ABNF [RFC5234] syntax:"
>> somehow reads as sort of redundantly redundant. Maybe: "The following
>> ABNF [RFC5234] syntax formally describes the 'multicast-rtcp'
>> attribute:"
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Cheers, acbegen.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> =============================
>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>