[secdir] Security Directorate review of draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-10
Dave Cridland <dave.cridland@isode.com> Thu, 11 February 2010 21:32 UTC
Return-Path: <dave.cridland@isode.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 C321E3A75F6; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:32:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 XyCmdhzcA--d; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5003A75B5; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puncture ((unknown) [217.155.137.60]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <S3R3qwBCzl3y@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:33:31 +0000
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
Message-Id: <9010.1265924009.626613@puncture>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:33:29 +0000
From: Dave Cridland <dave.cridland@isode.com>
To: draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Security Area Directorate <secdir@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [secdir] Security Directorate review of draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-10
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:32:24 -0000
I 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. Looking at the extensive, and well structured, security considerations suggests to me that the general scope of attacks is well documented. Several options are provided in Section 7.2.2, and in particular file vs packet level protection seem not to be wholly described. (It seems to be suggested in other sections that both are needed). I also note that the document appears to advise that MIME types can be deduced from the filename - such deduction has been known to be susceptible to damage, and I would further note that in the case of many URIs, there is a provided type already available by (possibly partial) resolution of the URI. In general, it's better to discard and replace file extensions based on the known media type to avoid the "foo.jpg.pif" cases. Dave.
- [secdir] Security Directorate review of draft-iet… Dave Cridland