Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework

David Benham <dabenham@gmail.com> Fri, 01 March 2019 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dabenham@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 AF729130EBC; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:46:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 31D6MPZEMyXn; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:46:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (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 2CAF212D4F2; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id o6so29381473qtk.6; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 12:46:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3gGb0dbXY8AojA+UtKtQ65o+1kx1cYEp4uhNf/OrAYI=; b=YG3NU4glWGJRUOlQLJ6zHEPzgqgvy7aNLEPHSlE14EGI1eSfInmS06GN0sKj5FaBVe casofDL09Jpb7oW5MF022OqiN409MhBawk5Dek2a2tvXN3VUCOvLwxMMFqfiWktzZww0 9h5Isx4u9GOm95gAC/OfTwVP4WBkNI9casrHe2JUrij/aFrVZXWzbk3OWvwUDvTaOgNg NBK4bCwfh96LLkWBPZVZ8vO7iPR5d8sR5vO2PYd6vZEyGrl3UkE6W1nCXjZDnnduwWwt QXAlD5qbSLS6iHsxvytd8aG9k46hglVGRIr3MdkGgaLM0R5DkZAfZRfB5C0HmigNQkAa IsXQ==
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=3gGb0dbXY8AojA+UtKtQ65o+1kx1cYEp4uhNf/OrAYI=; b=QTrocc8W1a2wDu7y36hodWga6T8AJFp3O1zak+i6mHSjynyrU7SI6oWDtY9IyTR6yQ NaThPSp7BTBggMS1+1yvu6DKvXoJUZsRiPUAp6CYGrYpVSKGlBAg2u+ooOt0KDkW152U qcRYlcr+TgaFiUrmWIVYD9Gc4zHhkwYfyNIrah3EOZf2dSUO3RQR994UBiPhbFN2KzbG irLLi4PlCUZ1Pk3r2IEnUCogPKjj3+z4VyW0SFc9Glei9wCHrcG/0tGPh+MvnYtL1up5 N8CHQr2Yfz3s1awQvy5h+Kiok70Wh8q34NAPxj3n6FOI+c2u8MVeNLCVYswB4Q8njzTa Li9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVhZTR6Pd4KUQzC1utetgZrflNiqy8yNgeoMUIyQdrzQ981kp+A FpGLTEAhSe4ghwNQTCLedD59e0tAzdCujdigcBE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxM08URHzYjFTk7wvMEr2Lk0JYpeuXDcT8qNF6dQWBdEnjEh2Y+rJ4B2f9empazNfnVwrpyWF0c5fNgwoeMmG8=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d196:: with SMTP id e22mr5287857qvh.181.1551473179867; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 12:46:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155014077570.26619.9407568904769535504@ietfa.amsl.com> <emb104d043-b701-4e92-9e08-1e1815c2981f@sydney> <6882A552-80DF-4322-9683-13D8E655F2DB@inria.fr> <em0afb83b5-7014-4039-88b4-5ae3d87a6b0b@sydney> <DB650EB5-5E7E-46B3-A8B7-524B36D2AC26@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <DB650EB5-5E7E-46B3-A8B7-524B36D2AC26@inria.fr>
From: David Benham <dabenham@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:46:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM5V9Z8Dz=qSB3n+8RGGx0d=1PgLds01asgOGDyhFL81g=TiuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c3bd9605830e7fb0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/3bd1f7zRzCTSPfTfehGLUw5ShrM>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework
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: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 20:46:24 -0000

Vincent
Follow up question regarding your general comments on sect 8.1 and 8.2
which we have not yet addressed in -09 ;

> Attacks of section 8.1 seems more realistic to me than attacks of section
8.2
> because of a weaker attacker model: the attacker is outside of the
systems,
> and not necessarily on the path.
> Therefore I would have liked to see more details in section 8.1, that’s
all.

You're asking for greater detail in sect 8.1 precisely because you estimate
that third-party attacks (aka outsiders to a given conference) are more
likely/common than the attacks we covered in the subsequent 8.2 section.
 Is that correct?

If so, I think we could restate some of what we have in sect 8.1 to make it
flow better and/or be clearer.   But it is not clear to us what we left out
detail-wise, or if we left out other attack examples.

With PERC's HBH integrity checks, authentication as well as HBH and E2E
encryption, we can quickly describe in text the prevention/mitigation of
attacks on the confidentiality of the media/content - PERCs reason to be -
to explain some of the brevity.

Could you help point us in the right direction with an example or two of
the things we should do to detail/elaborate sect 8.1.

> ** General comments about 8.1 and 8.2
> Insider attacks are a powerful form of attacker model with severe
consequences.
> This is not a big surprise. I'd be more interesting in a detailed 8.1
section,
> more likely to happen (weaker attacker model).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework/


On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:13 PM Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr> wrote:

> Hello Paul,
>
> Thanks for your answer and long explanations on the use of term
> « picture ». I was not aware of this
> evolution of vocabulary. Yes, please submit -09 version and I’ll have a
> new look at it.
>
>   Cheers,
>
>   Vincent
>