Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-core-12

"Kurt Andersen (IETF)" <> Thu, 03 January 2019 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC421311BC for <>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:21:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fF9_68ZP3p7R for <>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:21:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C4D31311BA for <>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:21:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i145so46188962ita.4 for <>; Thu, 03 Jan 2019 09:21:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6vMn7htPIDVTMG3vdYiac13Q/33PjJycg5SNJcgrrOM=; b=MUFgbIbiDM5QPjHxqRvEZaAzV8QhUHTN1DUI8cXTTB4ARL8YZ8Gk2Xk0j0DZoXm2pl OxMpU69jxUMWuD3pVtkdhADY/+Bzx+mT8b9xbADC34B80JQeA7Rsn2eRoLWyiXgrYjRN Au26ssQWvmaI2w+tVGI/jTVWXGN3P/MwHP8qQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6vMn7htPIDVTMG3vdYiac13Q/33PjJycg5SNJcgrrOM=; b=aIYoy5ozoZR3WvoFVof8nOoWNouiNGKQ9N/K/ItHr1DScKQwW8KPKuqvKQiO/jbx9Q HQ7JtvzDiW8jLrulVGpQI/cSpI9fWuzyTX7qPROayRoq/jLuaOH/eCX/IB9rnNJjEBJn W0KDLohfg4JnmanLCddkrAWEgZmHgvseBBmBpGGH6dad+XOnC/O3+Qo9dxXZMWsf+bbI KCY72sysoD5T5zEoOeF91HY+SuVlpPDixmZ+CoAGkpkMp7HTlLFNjAGwSNZTx1xXw6uy PJRQEjUHUwJH3PVroQ4tp795RTwHwn0z8tOMtHph/qNZAYXjQI7A3wXD+i0fh+UiqELv MLcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaZmNjvL02N2A4BKJPpK/gGQhNKsk1jjl3dFJbQtiW5/Zhqzojh fl0+6TaZtE5C91ckmcNpCkyXXh5qjz7cinD1diraRQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WAe2NQou/Az76GN6+ksX6yyZtr57wB/nbOoJAe/tyCeGaQtBv1P2sXTp6wvBYNoFGo5yFRNPXmYtT/RYyUFIg=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:3282:: with SMTP id j124mr31364799ita.173.1546536084187; Thu, 03 Jan 2019 09:21:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Kurt Andersen (IETF)" <>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:21:12 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Tero Kivinen <>
Cc:, IETF JMAP Mailing List <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ee3618057e90fd32"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-core-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 17:21:28 -0000

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:04 AM Tero Kivinen <>; wrote:

> Reviewer: Tero Kivinen
> Review result: Has Issues
> This document also has quite a lot of privacy concerns which are not
> addressed by it. For example email delivery and event notifications can
> leak lots of information even to passive attackers.

How is this any different than the risks present in current mechanisms
(websockets, HTTP, MAPI, IMAP, etc.)? I don't see this as a new risk being
introduced by the JMAP protocol.

Of course sharing mailboxes between multiple users (one of the
> examples given in 1.6.2), has lots of privacy issues.

Again, this is not a new risk being introduced by JMAP. It seems unfair to
saddle the JMAP protocol with the responsibility of documenting a
comprehensive set of privacy and security risks for bad or risky behaviours
that have been a wide part of common practice for decades.

--Kurt Andersen