Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 31 December 2015 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB821A88E2 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:49:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 H3-pZrVP86gK for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x232.google.com (mail-vk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::232]) (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 44C8B1A88C3 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id k1so93465434vkb.2 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:49:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OznFLEgl5yxDw41xPOhVwadiUcXiO+LWoc+pr1v0H1s=; b=QbF0Il+kYOx8LJtz5PBJo9pvRKss9KL9Zg9IOdFSQIRVCekKxjmYUw7HLvHm27t6sG PeVagw476PloKimN/QS6TAGLs+khoWRB8Ybqqz+GBfxztL/H6Vv4ikCdZULrjHyFW0+b vBh7/HsMD/1uqF5H7KgP0ujISyLmv6AyM4TyLm3aSYuKuzdxLSWmt4rDRDpMnOqwjg/x NJbtS0a7xbRubvzuTvez3XOtYDZM9PVcl3HoBlmUWo/as//IYrJFv1pbjJZgxOZJOJiL 6SJVF6aeRPzZKETvRCizsG7iq22kW3odIXVsyJXkzmhy64YY5vXFcT2vqMOnLmZ5svCx Dtlw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.6.143 with SMTP id 137mr48092690vkg.133.1451598575440; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.31.182.211 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:49:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1512311626070.29547@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1512311626070.29547@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:49:35 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: trwA-1XQriVyq7UExOeekzxI8fc
Message-ID: <CALaySJKUepewJP6Yk6MD9HW9Wr_aWSqZSCM73zypSpB0SrYG-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143d338721c67052838a1f3
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/EUf1rEGXXTGQ9N8TvJ6j2hUDXgE>
Cc: "draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension.all@tools.ietf.org>, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 21:49:37 -0000

Many thanks for the review, Paul.

Barry

On Thursday, December 31, 2015, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:

>
> 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 is Ready
>
> The document describes an IMAP extension to convey a limit size for
> appending to a mailbox. This prevents situations where the clients
> upload data only to have it rejected by the server. The security
> considerations are therefor limited in scope, as it is more of an
> optimization. The only item mentioned in the section is that an
> attacker that knows the limit could optimize their attack by sending
> better matching sized payloads for a denial-of-service attack, and
> servers should disconnect such clients as abusive. I believe that
> it correctly covers any new security risks that could arise from this
> document's specification. And that this issue is very minor compared
> to other DOS attacks possible by malicious clients that can successfully
> authenticate against the IMAP server.
>
> Paul
>
>