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

Victor Pascual Ávila <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com> Tue, 17 March 2009 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.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 33F313A684C for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 NVZVbzc0DzIn for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f177.google.com (mail-ew0-f177.google.com [209.85.219.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6E128C136 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy25 with SMTP id 25so3798183ewy.37 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eX7xL7JZ/GGLDy5CJtjM54n7ORj4EwSzin69HvJuRCQ=; b=RVH3alOQdXsPpqp8ymWuz3RNtVculto1ga4FU7GHH6d/trlttnix5zr+7heNoKcrz9 ERPO4hmP5I3EOs5qIobXQn6V7yAXCHkSQjSeIGrXgpZQ/LrEZ72z+0rL7uru1S/751vw 4Gh5kXvZH2AdunBh1YAa5YsUgXf25aa8eZDJk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=V6kxzC8BM4d54mjvj/0IQYbwC9vxd63UJg3YDTph5EAXwyqKiT8fb6dGHSruVkodEb DNC5lC/ljWUebOiHQp0Ft1R8JNMbet2PJLgmWjOnG6XkjJOyESIPYkCShC+uqmMG/V5W tIDOPMYBt5glnQ1+p7vzXyloEQ6LMUCm7lZ9c=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.210.13.17 with SMTP id 17mr4396227ebm.15.1237285055370; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <49BF7207.5080709@iptel.org>
References: <49AE593F.6080807@iptel.org> <49BBA27C.4050805@cisco.com> <49BE1FEF.4020008@iptel.org> <49BEBA8C.2020406@cisco.com> <49BECC19.9080704@ohlmeier.org> <49BF7207.5080709@iptel.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:17:35 +0100
Message-ID: <618e24240903170317s11aa5454ycfa0ab7b5708f10f@mail.gmail.com>
From: Victor Pascual Ávila <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>
To: Raphael Coeffic <rco@iptel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sip@ietf.org
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: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:16:54 -0000

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Raphael Coeffic <rco@iptel.org> wrote:
> You may be aware of it or not, however, we have already implemented this
> scenario at iptel.org. This is because iptel.org does not have any own PSTN
> gateway. In this case, the user can configure a PSTN gateway he whishes to
> use when such a number is dialed. We implemented like this to cope with all
> the low-end phones that do not provide multiple accounts, or do not offer a
> convenient way for the user to provide routing rules.

I agree-- some terminating domains may require authentication. Indeed,
this is defined in rfc3665 as a BCP. In Section 3.3 (Session with
Multiple Proxy Authentication), Proxy 1 is relaying challenges and
responses for different (sub)domains.

> So, as a conclusion, I do not think we are talking about theory, but about
> real existing applications. Of course, you could also store your other PSTN
> credentials at the proxy, and make it deal with the authentication for you.
> However, I'm quite sure you wouldn't be very confident about that, would
> you?

Once again, IMHO this should be as much end-to-end as possible. Some
folks are still using SIP as a protocol for the (open) Internet.

Cheers,
-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila