Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Sat, 16 February 2019 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1F8129C6A; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:57:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=packetizer.com
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 eNSdCMsYL3Ey; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [IPv6:2600:1f18:24d6:2e01:e842:9b2b:72a2:d2c6]) (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 4AD7B1277D2; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from authuser (localhost [127.0.0.1])
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1550300273; bh=/Sr6mslsGSy0tqZXigj9I9KE/GR7+YUa2gnRygxaeQc=; h=From:To:Subject:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Reply-To; b=S3jK+aoSyEFSDnMBdi4EgNmu9XSi9d0IIPOUgL541F9HSdXK3oC1qG/G2hGSFBuNS FqM2pQolbaUW0RSlhVGwmlJvT62z7xkkkFlErTw8tayn3JX5A1EV+Q44GtRIEAp7oT /IAib5RHBgm3PJa6euYbTM6lNe3kJwsZBwdXcEOo=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: "Vincent Roca" <vincent.roca@inria.fr>, secdir@ietf.org
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework.all@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 06:57:49 +0000
Message-Id: <emb104d043-b701-4e92-9e08-1e1815c2981f@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <155014077570.26619.9407568904769535504@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <155014077570.26619.9407568904769535504@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/7.2.34208.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/qLpVekb22aoszju3ZgJpmafH5vk>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 06:57:59 -0000

Vincent,

Thanks for the review.  Please see comments inline.

>** Section 8.1
>Why is it said that:
>         "A successful attacker might be able to get the Media Distributor to
>         forward such packets."
>Is it really possible? That would be a big design issue! In fact the following
>sentence suggest the opposite and I think this is essentially an erroneous
>manner to present things. Please see comments on Section 8.2.4 on saying things
>the other way round.

Indeed, this kind of attack would not be possible since the Media 
Distributor must perform HBH authentication. I'll re-word this.

>The same comment applies to the remaining two paragraphs. I suggest the authors
>explain that the proposal prevents an attacker to claim being a regular Media
>Distributor and therefore to fool endpoints because ...".

The "false Media Distributor" example could happen. For example, if a 
hacker had access to the network where the Media Distributor is located 
and claims the Media Distributor's address while the conference is 
operating, the endpoints might not know. However, the worst result of 
such an attack is similar to just unplugging the box: packets just don't 
flow. The fake box could attempt to forward packets it receives, but 
they would fail to authenticate at the receiving endpoints and be 
discarded. However, this false device could never gain access to the 
media and would not be given HBH keys since it could not authenticate 
with the Key Distributor.


>** Section 8.2.2.
>Is the following sentence correct:
>    The mitigation for a replay attack is to prevent old packets beyond a
>    small-to-modest jitter and network re-ordering sized window to be
>    rejected.
>Is "prevent [...] to be rejected" correct? I'd say "... to be delivered"
>instead.

"prevent... rejected" is definitely an error. However, we cannot stop 
delivery. If replayed packets are received by either the Media 
Distributor or the endpoint, they should be discarded. So, perhaps this 
is better:

"The mitigation for a replay attack is to discard old packets beyond a
small-to-modest jitter and network re-ordering sized window."


>Another comment. Replay protection seems to be based on timing considerations
>rather than on the use of unique sequence numbers that must not be replayed
>(except if a wrapping to zero occurs of course). Is that correct? Additionally,
>is this mechanism carefully described in this document? Since it is explained
>that E2E replay protection MUST be provided, it's essential to be very clear on
>how to perform this. Failing to do so is a big issue.

The mechanism underlying this is SRTP, which defines in 3.3.2/RFC3711 an 
"SRTP window size". We felt it was best to not introduce conflicting 
language. Perhaps we should just change the paragraph more substantially 
and refer to SRTP.

Would you prefer this as the second paragraph?

"The mitigation for a replay attack is to implement replay protection as
described in Section 3.3.2 of [RFC3711].
End-to-end replay protection **MUST** be provided for the
whole duration of the conference."


>** Section 8.2.3
>It is said that "a Media Distributor can select to not deliver a particular
>stream for a while." That's perfectly true, yet is this a "Delayed playout
>attack"? I'd rather call it a Media Distributor censorship attack, or something
>along this line. The main idea behind the attack is not to delay a stream but
>to censor a source.

This attack is not to censor, but to delay. For example, at time "T" Bob 
might say "I agree with your proposal". However, the "evil" Media 
Distributor could opt to not forward those packets and hold them. At 
some time "T+delta", the Media Distributor then forwards them. The 
receiving endpoint might not know that the packets were an hour old, so 
the receiver Alice thinks Bob is agreeing with a proposal that Bob 
actually doesn't agree with.

However, a censorship attack is also possible. But I think we covered 
that in the Denial of Service section. The Media Distributor could 
always elect to not forward, which is in effect censoring the 
conversation.


>
>In the second paragraph I don't understand why it is said that:
>         "the receiver believing that it is what was said just now, and only
>         delayed due to transport delay."
>Any RTP packet contains a timestamp (whose integrity is protected end-to-end if
>I understand correctly), and this timestamp is used by the receiver to identify
>timing issues. The fact a packet is delayed (significantly) by a Media
>Distributor cannot be misinterpreted by a receiver as a "what was said just
>now". The receiver immediately identifies this delay.

While that might be true, I'd guess most implementations would not 
maintain this timing information for media held for a substantial period 
of time. And media held for a short duration really might be considered 
late only due to network delays. That actually does happen when network 
congestion builds. So, short delays might easily be attributed to 
network delays and long delays likely result in a "reset" of the flow at 
the endpoint. I think all we can do here is provide a warning about 
this, but I'm happy to make adjustments if you have specific words you 
think would make this clearer.


>I now understand the title ("delayed playout") but I really suspect this is a
>mistake as (too much) delayed packets will not be played at all.

I bet they would :) Seriously, I have seen far stranger things. And 
implementers might consider doing that as a "resilient" implementation.


>** Section 8.2.4:
>I don't like the way this section is written. It first explains what a Media
>Distributor could do if it could alter a certain header field (in this case
>SSRC), it details the consequences, to finally explain that this is not
>possible. This Security Discussion section is essentially meant to discuss
>remaining security issues or highlight specific aspects, not what could happen
>with a different, non secure, design. This text could also be written the other
>way round: "By including the SSR field into the integrity check, PERC prevents
>splicing attacks where...".

I assume you (and Ben) are looking to change that last sentence from 
"not allowing" to "by including"? I'll change it that way, but if that 
wasn't your meaning, please let me know.


>
>** Missing in 8.2
>The RTCP flows are not encrypted end-to-end (unlike data flows) but only
>hop-by-hop. Consequently, a malicious Media Distributors may corrupt an RTCP
>packet content (e.g., reception statistics in RR) or forge malicious RTCP
>packets which may trigger various effects at a sender. There are other types of
>RTCP packets that may be attacked as well with various consequences. None of
>this is explained in section 8.2. "Media Distributor Attacks".

This is true, though it wasn't a concern since the objective of PERC was 
to secure the media E2E. Nonetheless, you're correct. How about this as 
a new section called "RTCP attacks" under the Media Distributor attacks 
section?

PERC does not provide end-to-end protection of RTCP messages. This 
allows
a malicious Media Distributor to impact any message that might be 
transmitted
via RTCP, including media statistics, picture requests, os loss 
indication.
It is also possible for the Media Distributor to forge requests, such as
requests to the endpoint to send a new picture. Such requests can 
consume
significant bandwidth and impair conference performance.

>
>** General comments about 8.1 and 8.2
>Insider attacks are a powerful form of attacker model with severe consequences.
>This is not a big surprise. I'd be more interesting in a detailed 8.1 section,
>more likely to happen (weaker attacker model).

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. You want a new section 
(e.g., 8.3) that details insider attacks or something related to each of 
the existing 8.1/8.2 sections? Insider attacks could be disastrous, 
definitely. They could range from anything from turning off the power to 
stealing the KEKs stored in the Key Distributor. The latter is "scary" 
in that, if a rogue individual were to steal the KEKs, he or she could 
decrypt media off-line and at a later date. And, if the Key Distributor 
stored the keys for a long time (e.g., so as to enable conference 
recording and playback -- something not really considered on PERC, but 
certainly implementable), then they could first capture the media flows 
and then decrypt them a year later once they have access to the KEKs. 
The two attacks do not have to carried out concurrently and there would 
be no defense against theft of KEKs.

We could scare people with some words about keeping the Key Distributor 
secure, but I'm not sure what we need to convey.


>Suggestion:
>
>** 8.2. Instead of:
>         "The Media Distributor can attack the session in a number of possible
>         ways."
>I suggest:
>         "A malicious or compromised Media Distributor can ..."

Changed as suggested.


>Typos:
>
>** Intro: s/virutalized/virtualized/

Wow. I think that typo has been for a very long time.


>** Section 2: s/and is never allowed have access/and is never allowed to have
>access/

Fixed.


>** 8. Security Considerations:
>         s/could incorrectly assuming/could incorrectly assume/
Fixed.

>         s/This attack is be mitigated/This attack is mitigated/

Fixed.


>         s/when an already received packets/when an already received packet/

Fixed.

>
>Other comments:
>
>** Section 6, intro: (it's a detail, but...)
>I don't think that the use of "and so forth" is adequate in a specification
>that aims to be exhaustive. The list of items addressed in section 6 is
>finished.

Agreed. I'm just cut the sentence short:

"This section describes the various keys employed by PERC."

The sub-section titles are sufficient, I think.

Thanks!
Paul