IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sip] draft-state-sip-relay-attack-00

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Sat, 07 March 2009 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9E53A6A58 for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:39:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 MW6+b+HfJdcM for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C0E3A6923 for <sip@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:40:01 -0500
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:40:01 -0500
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Theo Zourzouvillys <theo@crazygreek.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:39:59 -0500
Thread-Topic: [Sip] draft-state-sip-relay-attack-00
Thread-Index: Acmfa1y7mzEa2TTeSzyWMntAalBFBAABboDw
Message-ID: <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C4DE62C1@mail>
References: <49AE593F.6080807@iptel.org> <0a8001c99d0f$0b21e210$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <49AF9FC8.2020200@iptel.org> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C46BD96D@mail> <20090307195045.GC4364@x61s.janakj.ryngle.net> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C4DE62A5@mail> <167dfb9b0903071326u7a44d55fub7ebdb426460ce61@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <167dfb9b0903071326u7a44d55fub7ebdb426460ce61@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "sip@ietf.org" <sip@ietf.org>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-state-sip-relay-attack-00
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:39:31 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo Zourzouvillys [mailto:theo@crazygreek.co.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 4:26 PM
>
> hmm, the above paragraph could almost have been talking about
> AOL/compuserv vs a "real" ISP 15 years ago :-)

Indeed. :)
And email has been getting less spam and phishing and viruses ever since.  And email has an even stronger architecture for security than SIP in some ways, ironically.  And less impact on the user-experience when it fails.  In many ways SIP's user-experience model is closer to IM than email, but with some worse security properties.  (and it's debatable if one would call IM "open", or end-to-end)

But even in that context of closed vs. open, you find web hosts having to employ strong and stronger means of user authentication, such as captcha's, and connection-layer security, such as TLS.  If the open SIP providers don't employ some counter-measures for spoofing, user authentication, and service control, then they will when the issues crop up. (if they have enough users to make attacking them interesting, which is the big "if")

But anyway, that's why I want a SIP Identity mechanism that actually works, fwiw.

-hadriel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email