IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Mon, 09 March 2009 20:29 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 265D23A6A0D for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, 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 pSFc74PcSniR for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA633A69BA for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
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; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:30:03 -0400
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:30:03 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Raphael Coeffic <rco@iptel.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:30:01 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Sip] draft-state-sip-relay-attack-00
Thread-Index: AcmgrAdWZnDRwuuzRh+l4fkwrKJgxQASKi+g
Message-ID: <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C4FAA08C@mail>
References: <49AE593F.6080807@iptel.org> <e4c7495a3f98d5a2a85ccf85047515f0.squirrel@www.ohlmeier.com> <20090307183313.GA4364@x61s.janakj.ryngle.net> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C4DE6292@mail> <49B2F7F2.6030804@ohlmeier.org> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C4DE62D4@mail> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C4DE62F0@mail> <49B5006D.8050702@iptel.org>
In-Reply-To: <49B5006D.8050702@iptel.org>
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: Nils Ohlmeier <lists@ohlmeier.org>, "sip@ietf.org" <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: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:29:34 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raphael Coeffic [mailto:rco@iptel.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 7:42 AM
>
> That's a good point. Requiring the user to be registered and only
> accepting requests from the registered contacts provide a fair-enough
> level of security concerning the attack debated. But I am still hoping
> that we could find a solution not requiring this kind of measures, which
> I would call "user-restricting".

How is it "user-restricting" to require a UA to generate a REGISTER request?  Most humans don't generate the REGISTER request by hand - typically software does it for them.  :)
I mean at that point you can also just say "digest authentication is user-restricting".

-hadriel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email