Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Mon, 07 December 2009 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.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 673213A68C2; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:51:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Qhsmxqw+-mSf; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924C13A683E; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEALqyHEurRN+J/2dsb2JhbADDSJYWhDMEgWc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,356,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="115308017"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2009 15:51:27 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB7FpRoI028163; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:51:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:51:27 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:51:22 -0800
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540AD0E252@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <19228.64637.664835.801627@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05
Thread-Index: Acp3PVaLPgjswfngTi6Dlwli1SxNJQAF0Cag
References: <19228.64637.664835.801627@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: "Tero Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>, <iesg@ietf.org>, <secdir@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2009 15:51:27.0805 (UTC) FILETIME=[2315FED0:01CA7755]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:56:50 -0800
Cc: fecframe-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05
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: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:51:38 -0000

Hi Tero,

Thanks for the review. Yes, we should add that to the document, which is something I tend to do in the next revision.

Cheers, acbegen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tero Kivinen [mailto:kivinen@iki.fi]
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 8:01 AM
> To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme@tools.ietf.org; fecframe-
> chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-05
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
> security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> This document defines new RTP payload format for sending forward error
> correction that is generated by the 1-D interleaved parity code.
> 
> The security considerations section refers to the generic RTP
> (RFC3550) security considerations. It also mentions generic solutions
> to different security problems (encryption for confidentiality,
> integrity protection mechanism for integrity and authentication of the
> source of the payload).
> 
> It does not list any specific mechanisms, but points to Secure
> Real-time Transport Protocol SRTP (RFC3711), IPsec (RFC4301) and TLS
> (RFC5246).
> 
> The only thing missing from the security considerations section is
> that it should mention that the repair flow should require exactly
> same security features that what is provided to the source flow. The
> repair flow packets are xor of the multiple source flow packets, and
> if those do not get exactly same confidentiality, integrity and
> authentication of source protection then the original source flow
> confidentiality, integrity or authentication of the source could be
> compromized.
> 
> I.e. it is not acceptable for using for example AES, SHA2-256 to
> protect source flow, but send repair flow without encryption and
> without integrity protection, as when doing that attacker can replace
> repair flow packets, and cause source flow packets to drop triggering
> error correcting procedures on the receiver which will then use repair
> flow packets having weaker security than source flow packets.
> --
> kivinen@iki.fi