Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Wed, 15 December 2010 04:51 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 D089E3A6DB0; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:51:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 fWkcT4+q3Bz0; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:51:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF7F3A6DA6; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:51:33 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHvYB02rR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACkHHildpspgwyCPgSEZIkzgmw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,346,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="636141178"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2010 04:53:08 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBF4r8qE016055; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 04:53:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:53:08 -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: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:52:33 -0800
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DE2E71E@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikaFHSYb6cBnqtCm8JYYt=YVbXiqxs083XmkU_o@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: SecDir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03
Thread-Index: AcucCsoHK8IBnbXESLyDlHdrL0fz+AACEB8A
References: <AANLkTikaFHSYb6cBnqtCm8JYYt=YVbXiqxs083XmkU_o@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, <secdir@ietf.org>, <iesg@ietf.org>, "Keith Drage" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, "Roni Even" <even.roni@huawei.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2010 04:53:08.0666 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7D871A0:01CB9C13]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:36:03 -0800
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03
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: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 04:51:35 -0000

Hi Donald,

Thanks for the review.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:47 PM
> To: secdir@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; Ali C. Begen (abegen); Keith Drage; Roni Even
> Subject: SecDir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> This draft specifies the addition of a new SDP attribute. This
> attribute does not appear to present any new type of security
> vulnerability.
> 
> I believe the Security Considerations section needs a small addition
> to avoid being too vague. It currently just says "Therefore, as usual
> adequate security measures are RECOMMENDED ..." without giving any
> hint as to what those measures are or where to find any. Admittedly,
> this draft is an update to RFC 5760 and a reasonable non-exclusive
> list of such measures occurs in that RFC. Nevertheless, I would be
> much more comfortable if the Security Considerations section wording
> was augmented so it said "Therefore, adequate security measures, such
> as those listed in the Security Considerations section of [RFC5760],
> are RECOMMENDED...".

Based on other reviews and discussing with the AD, we went one step further and the sentence above is replaced with:
 
"In order to avoid attacks of this sort, the SDP description needs to be integrity protected and provided with source authentication. This can, for example, be achieved on an end-to-end basis using S/MIME RFC5652 when SDP is used in a signaling packet using MIME types (application/sdp). Alternatively, HTTPS RFC2818 or the authentication method in the Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) RFC2974 could be used as well."

> Trivia:
> 
> The following sentence:
>    "The formal description of the 'multicast-rtcp' attribute is defined
>    by the following ABNF [RFC5234] syntax:"
> somehow reads as sort of redundantly redundant. Maybe: "The following
> ABNF [RFC5234] syntax formally describes the 'multicast-rtcp'
> attribute:"

Sounds good.

Cheers, acbegen.
 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com