Re: [secdir] [Jmap] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-core-12

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 07 January 2019 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD7712008A; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 15:46:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 T_jeNkXYZJqc; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 15:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-f182.google.com (mail-it1-f182.google.com [209.85.166.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97413124408; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 15:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-f182.google.com with SMTP id i145so3797290ita.4; Mon, 07 Jan 2019 15:46:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VXjr4S+tIR7RyNjfIppAlE1Nw8gJi9rLPZrAyGgcJX8=; b=STOloBCi1Ycyv33UTq0qINVbWeU+/zqwpmT/1jUjFqGHDJEBtcFdZmn4DPtSph2vY2 XRAFXSrz/Z2V5A2NXYA+aQgnrbrFBWqYOULwh/USXjM1D7NpwZs2JstkoL+7bddGnp9j AnaZ28e5iqNp4BfVNDXS+gQ5gJ1Ui12R3g0rbCTx64CxmcLoHG2u1MMquQwGkCBfJNa4 K54DleUbh3zx4oGXTv2GxIwSNuELb0npSsMRJh/mrBgoSR6j9NTJU42UlaPwbxOISpD/ SUvP2PwDT/vzJOxqaOXtxKifSfNRPd9myokEc7/5lrNvllY0Z4Q3OddIiJNl82GhpV8/ ZuEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcf9INsRNltY6XVjb8Hmz2o0IjkFpD9HHE01mgXAzHwDigVAZ5x GnPFrI3UxHfG/x82ZLOMisbAUWMDHv0+m9gm1/8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN61Uf7w4fd3vFHraGIfI42dqdeWymqPpTDfeJMx3G4pnqluhJ7Ygx3vTXp9iOsw+RUXtvYye/9z/xeu9ZLb0vw=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:dd8d:: with SMTP id t135mr8175177itf.84.1546904807539; Mon, 07 Jan 2019 15:46:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154651703823.29557.748556981627156046@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABuGu1oM4qBcMNxh=rnWCSD-tVJYcNmDaL+orwBqq=OAvKWOZg@mail.gmail.com> <01R1M7QIBP9I00004R@mauve.mrochek.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901071223520.3160@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <01R1Q3OA5O7800004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01R1Q3OA5O7800004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 07:46:36 +0800
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+B4upNdNcieMoR5uUJ-06vxu4UzHWKKzStTrF0k-9u9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Cc: IETF JMAP Mailing List <jmap@ietf.org>, "Kurt Andersen (IETF)" <kurta+ietf@drkurt.com>, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, draft-ietf-jmap-core.all@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008e07f0057ee6d79c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/1utdPxGNLkN97PLWgAZy9ef-abQ>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [Jmap] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-core-12
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 23:46:51 -0000

Hm.  I don’t see that.  All you get in response to the IDLE command is the
same stuff you get from the NOOP command or from any other IMAP command:
untagged FETCH and EXPUNGE responses.  Technically, they’re not actually
responses to the command: they’re unsolicited messages in the IMAP protocol.

What security considerations should there be for IDLE that are beyond those
for NOOP (that is, IMAP itself?

Barry

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:58 AM Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>; wrote:

> > Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>; wrote:
> > >
> > > AFAICT it's different in the sense that this is the first push email
> > > notification mechanism we have standardized.
>
> > What about RFC 2177 IMAP IDLE?
>
> IDLE is an odd mix of pull and push. I don't think it really meets the
> criteria
> for a pure push mechanism, although on futher consideration I suppose with
> some
> persistance and careful observation of multiple IMAP streams you could
> perform
> this sort of traffic analysis on it.
>
> That said, the fact that the security considerations section in RFC 2177
> says in its entirety:
>
>   There are no known security issues with this extension.
>
> is pretty disturbing regardless. At a minimum an IDLE stream leaks
> information
> about a particular mailbox's activity, even when uncorrelated with incoming
> messages.
>
>                                 Ned
>