Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-02

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 14 November 2010 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 CE4CE3A6C68; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:49:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 5pH1X8KzS+pj; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:49:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6ED43A6B5F; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:49:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so5449943iwn.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:49:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=TPbwt9jMIwlFMRxHDxFF+AFboDFXI75OWpya0pqsVYs=; b=Qt4eHwnNg1WzFW2ScDhBSB4uOSnQGBlvq9CTz05wibIC1omIY4r5bwukF7E6uz7wr1 MZiH3VMP+IO6aFlDBUTO9KuJR3K3GzTKEXrypKgCzL6/xaQ9M1XJzcKVWjb2tCO/AZWr pS6Qhe/Hm906HMFjkoVHbjLb4OiULloHCsdBY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=CyxgYGcixCmF+OyHsdO6OjsOQfYPLSicZQexoJgh/94WBYevMnZwj784gRtRYVvknR QGNknKdaqsUiR48NqH1TvctnIOMjq+fq43gUqq9P+DOeDW/CjjI3cmrKp5ykXfA2+s7U ehrACmbe2vkCNRcAT69Myx3Stv7C7sibKPDOc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.37.1 with SMTP id v1mr3200884ibd.103.1289695796854; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:49:56 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.19.137 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:49:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C9038765.BF75%stefan@aaa-sec.com>
References: <C9038765.BF75%stefan@aaa-sec.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:49:56 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: NliVNYxFu3Z2w_AH_r2cTH9xY6M
Message-ID: <AANLkTimMOFZKTt-29N1bww5GCbLgor7Aa49mXAAPi-8d@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Stefan Santesson <stefan@aaa-sec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence.all@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-02
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: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:49:20 -0000

Thanks for the review, Stefan.

> One thing that strikes me as possibly relevant is if this in any way can be
> a means (in some variants of it's use) through which a spammer can gain
> information about the status of the recipient.

We had thought of that, but I thought enough was said.  Probably not,
so I intend to add this paragraph to the security considerations,
already in my working copy:
---
In some situations, scripts may act on some of the recipient's
presence information that the sender of the triggering message
is not allowed to see.  This can be a benefit to the recipient
in many cases, but it can also present an opportunity for a
sender to use messages to probe the recipient's presence (if,
for example, messages sometimes result in auto-replies, and
sometimes do not).  Script authors should take care in
considering this aspect of presence-triggered actions.
---

Does that address your concern adequately?

Barry