Re: [Sip] comments on draft-kupwade-sip-iba-00

Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com> Wed, 27 February 2008 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-sip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E013A6E40; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:07:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.338
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 c9TcDCmGl+gv; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0EC3A6E46; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:06:18 -0800 (PST)
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 2E0EA3A6E46 for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:06:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 1T66TrqOQM2J for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:06:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (unknown [74.95.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FA73A6E4F for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:05:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com (localhost.rtfm.com [127.0.0.1]) by romeo.rtfm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A5C05081A; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:07:01 -0800
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
To: Harsh Kupwade <harsh_smu@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <159863.80038.qm@web65510.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <20080227163900.8BD695081A@romeo.rtfm.com> <159863.80038.qm@web65510.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Message-Id: <20080227170702.5A5C05081A@romeo.rtfm.com>
Cc: sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] comments on draft-kupwade-sip-iba-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-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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

At Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:59:10 -0800 (PST),
Harsh Kupwade wrote:
> 
> [1  <text/plain; iso-8859-1 (8bit)>]
> How can we verify a certificate from a random CA? It will definitely
> be a serious threat in the near future.

Uh, that the trust anchors are publicly known and compiled into
your client. 


>    A malicious KG is equivalent to a malicious CA. A malicious CA
>    can also tag a public key to a different user and pose the same
>    threat level.

Yes, a malicious CA is bad.
No, a malicious CA is not anywhere near as bad as a malicious KG.
A malicious CA has to mount MITM attacks on all your traffic
in order to decrypt. A malicious KG can passively decrypt.

Again, some people view escrow as a feature, but its simply
not true that the security properties of PKI-based systems
are the same as those IBE-based systems.

-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip