Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 03 April 2015 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 A56101A0250; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 puSuaZyFaRxU; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83BF81A0242; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t33KXceX052960 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:33:48 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Jean-Marc Valin" <jmvalin@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:33:38 -0500
Message-ID: <C17AE3D5-F62D-42A3-9F1F-885BF1B984EB@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <C3DD8EE5-B066-4C06-99F4-B9147A128811@nostrum.com>
References: <sjmoaosz53h.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <54E3A32F.2010008@jmvalin.ca> <760B7D45D1EFF74988DBF5C2122830C24D064CDE@szxpml507-mbx.exmail.huawei.com> <sjmk2zdzv6g.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <916F29B3-E392-481B-A269-FBA58DFEF14D@nostrum.com> <551C612B.4030702@mozilla.com> <C3DD8EE5-B066-4C06-99F4-B9147A128811@nostrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/c_9LSay02LiAw7eNmnwgrdxmJd0>
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, payload@ietf.org, "jspittka@gmail.com" <jspittka@gmail.com>, Roni Even <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "koenvos74@gmail.com" <koenvos74@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08
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: <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: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:34:00 -0000

(+payload@ietf.org)

I just noticed this thread is has included the payload mail list. Since 
the discussion involves potential material changes (i.e. normative 
language changes) , the working group should at least see it.

/Ben.

On 1 Apr 2015, at 17:50, Ben Campbell wrote:

> On 1 Apr 2015, at 16:20, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
>
>> Based on Derek's latest suggestion, the text would become:
>>
>> "Since Opus does not provide any confidentiality or integrity
>> protection, implementations SHOULD use one of the possible RTP
>> Security methods (See RFC7201, RFC7202)."
>>
>> I think that should resolve the issue that was raised.
>
> I'm not sure that's the right solution. First, 7201 and 7202 are 
> informational, so I'm not sure we want to insert a normative reference 
> to them here.
>
> But more to the point, while I concur with the desire to push for 
> better protections, I don't think a codec payload spec is the right 
> place to do it. It risks having different security requirements for 
> different codecs when used by the same RTP application. I can see that 
> if there are really security difference (e.g. if some codec had built 
> in protection.)
>
> I think this is rather the point of 7202, although I notice section 6 
> of that draft says: "It is also expected that a similar [MTI crypto 
> spec] will be produced for voice-over-IP applications using SIP and 
> RTP." Unfortunately, I don't think that ever happened.
>
> So my suggestion would be something more to the effect of:
>
> "Opus does not provide any built-in confidentiality or integrity
> protection. Protection requirements vary between RTP applications.
> See RFC 7201 and RFC 7202 for a discussion.
>
>>
>> 	Jean-Marc
>>
>> On 01/04/15 05:11 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>> Hi Roni and Derek,
>>>
>>> This thread sort of tailed off in February. Has the discussion been
>>> resolved?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Ben.
>>>
>>> On 19 Feb 2015, at 11:07, Derek Atkins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roni,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not an RTP guy.  To me "SRTP" is a general class of "Secure
>>>> RTP" protocols.  So let's work on that as my starting point:
>>>> implementations SHOULD protect their RTP stream.
>>>>
>>>> Based on that, how about a re-wording here?  Instead of just
>>>> saying "MAY use SRTP", how about something like "SHOULD use one
>>>> of the possible RTP Security methods (See RFC7201, RFC7202)"?
>>>> (Obviously this can be worded better).
>>>>
>>>> -derek
>>>>
>>>> Roni Even <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, The reason for the may is discussed in RFC7201 and RFC
>>>>> 7202, it can be a SHOULD and these RFCs exaplain when it is not
>>>>> required to use SRTP. Maybe add a reference to these RFCs in
>>>>> the security section when saying talking about good reasons for
>>>>> not using SRTP
>>>>>
>>>>> Roni Even
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________ From: Jean-Marc Valin
>>>>> [jvalin@mozilla.com] on behalf of Jean-Marc Valin
>>>>> [jmvalin@mozilla.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:23
>>>>> PM To: Derek Atkins; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org Cc:
>>>>> payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org; koenvos74@gmail.com;
>>>>> jspittka@gmail.com Subject: Re: sec-dir review of
>>>>> draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Derek,
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no particular reason for the MAY, the text was merely
>>>>> copied from other RTP payload RFC. I totally agree with making
>>>>> it a SHOULD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jean-Marc
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/02/15 02:54 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> with the intent of improving security requirements and
>>>>>> considerations in IETF drafts.  Comments not addressed in
>>>>>> last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG
>>>>>> review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
>>>>>> comments just like any other last call comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ready to publish with a question: I question why the use of
>>>>>> SRTP is a MAY and not a SHOULD (as detailed in the Security
>>>>>> Considerations section).  Considering PERPASS I believe this
>>>>>> should be a SHOULD; someone should have a very good reason
>>>>>> why they are NOT using SRTP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Details:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This document defines the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
>>>>>> payload format for packetization of Opus encoded speech and
>>>>>> audio data necessary to integrate the codec in the most
>>>>>> compatible way. Further, it describes media type
>>>>>> registrations for the RTP payload format.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no other comments on this document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -derek
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ secdir mailing
>>>>> list secdir@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir wiki:
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com
>>>> www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant