Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-cdmi-mediatypes

"Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" <ksankar@cisco.com> Sun, 12 December 2010 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ksankar@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 2EC0D3A683E; Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:58:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 PG8EsEjfPzM3; Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:57:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301253A683B; Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:57:59 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAOrkA02rRN+K/2dsb2JhbACkDnilMZoChUoEhGSJL4gK
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,331,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="301019370"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2010 04:59:34 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBC4xYHu013994; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:59:34 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.188]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:59:34 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:59:56 -0800
Message-ID: <9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0C9B0154@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <ldvzksd1nqv.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-cdmi-mediatypes
Thread-Index: AcuYmMsEnuydau+PT+mFFm6VecjprABIJCtA
References: <ldvlj3y2qdh.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu><9FA16888AD1BF64ABCE6C2532CCEB98A0C9AFD44@xmb-sjc-219.amer.cisco.com> <ldvzksd1nqv.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
From: "Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" <ksankar@cisco.com>
To: "Tom Yu" <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2010 04:59:34.0028 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E4CC4C0:01CB99B9]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:42:30 -0800
Cc: draft-cdmi-mediatypes.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-cdmi-mediatypes
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, 12 Dec 2010 04:58:00 -0000

New version posted http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cdmi-mediatypes-04.txt

Cheers & thanks
<k/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Yu [mailto:tlyu@MIT.EDU] 
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:34 AM
To: Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
Cc: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org;
draft-cdmi-mediatypes.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-cdmi-mediatypes

"Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" <ksankar@cisco.com>; writes:

> Tom,
> 	The security considerations in RFC 4627 pertains to JavaScript
> and security pertaining to scripting languages. We are not using
> JavaScript in CDMI and so that section is not relevant here.
> Cheers
> <k/>

Section 3.1 of your document says that the CDMI interface represents
CDMI objects in JSON format.  If some element of some CDMI
implementation is written (perhaps ill-advisedly) in JavaScript and
chooses to use eval() to parse the JSON encoding, then I believe the
Security Considerations of RFC 4627 would apply.