Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 17 July 2013 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 4661421F9C33 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94NnHDQHMbQm for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8793E21F968B for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-228.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6HKWw27071220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:32:59 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-228.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.228] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <1670FE635C32C34AAD005D960F1C501115CA4D2B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:33:00 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <85CA57E8-1B3D-4537-87D1-3926B3CAFB76@vpnc.org>
References: <845C917C-4115-4F3E-9E91-E6A3DB903F0C@vpnc.org> <1670FE635C32C34AAD005D960F1C501115CA4D2B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
To: "draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax.all@tools.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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, 17 Jul 2013 20:33:05 -0000

On Jul 17, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre (psaintan) <psaintan@cisco.com> wrote:

>> There should also be at least a paragraph describing the difference in commonly-used authentication mechanisms for SIP and XMPP. A user may have authenticated one of the two channels with an easily-attacked password, but the other channel with a strong cryptographic mechanism such as TLS client certificates. When you combine two similar functions into one application without making that clear, a user might assume that their IM and voice communications are similarly protected when in fact they are not.
> 
> The two examples in the Security Considerations are (1) authentication and (2) channel encryption.

But they are not called out as such, and they are in a single paragraph.

> Do you think we need a full new paragraph about authentication mechanism mismatches, or would it be acceptable to expand upon the text that's there now?

Full new paragraph. And maybe split out the previous two.

--Paul Hoffman