Re: [Sipbrandy] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Wed, 29 May 2019 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0C7120114; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OS1gJ-wcl6Al; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19BCA12014E; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korb.sei.cmu.edu (korb.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.30]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x4TJBD5t008024; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:11:14 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu x4TJBD5t008024
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1559157074; bh=g0BiV4B6MC1+HDgVX5QPiBI91CbnDAPyEM1+qGBC+sU=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JXY1WHDJl/UOuxl5r1mHu9VXwZwPauCTI5ziJ2+quRmpx4mX1E+GFbpWM6st8BKS2 A0tIhnl8Q0vshMFwxJO8cF6QUZIuhwT6mCPCeKCAuwZkpAobytHzyIhZo0YW+W7Psv 2c8kFMjU3Kf99/O6pSQvp32jtQTmFpiMNJuk5Ri8=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by korb.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x4TJB9hl032592; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:11:09 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:11:08 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
CC: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp@ietf.org>, "sipbrandy@ietf.org" <sipbrandy@ietf.org>, "sipbrandy-chairs@ietf.org" <sipbrandy-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [Sipbrandy] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVFTs5gBVapXo2mUObzGrF9bezW6aA5bIA///Uo+CAAHOdAP//vT8Q
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 19:11:07 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B337C1C3@marathon>
References: <155903721225.25618.16702710214584112001.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <C79C4B59-2DC2-4DF8-B68A-7DCCB87EBFA1@nostrum.com> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B3379F4D@marathon> <87605986-BBD8-46B6-9E4D-E24CB823DBEF@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <87605986-BBD8-46B6-9E4D-E24CB823DBEF@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipbrandy/a6d9x5g3PExHxgKhL1UUqwPteCI>
Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sipbrandy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list <sipbrandy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipbrandy>, <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipbrandy/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipbrandy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy>, <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 19:11:21 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:22 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>om>; Barry Leiba
> <barryleiba@computer.org>rg>; draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp@ietf.org;
> sipbrandy@ietf.org; sipbrandy-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>;
> Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
> Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> The esteem in which ZRTP is currently held is approximately the same
> esteem in which it was held when it was initially published.

On my reading list are the following academic pubs who's abstract suggest new insight into ZRTP's security properties ...

Bhargavan, K., et al.  Downgrade Resilience in Key Exchange Protocols.  2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7546520&tag=1

Shurmann, D.  et al.  Wiretapping End-to-End Encrypted VoIP Calls: Real-World Attacks on ZRTP.  Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2017 (3):1-17.
https://petsymposium.org/2017/papers/issue3/paper01-2017-3-source.pdf

Roman
 

> /a
> 
> > On May 28, 2019, at 14:15, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: iesg [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 11:04 AM
> >> To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
> >> Cc: draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp@ietf.org; sipbrandy@ietf.org;
> >> sipbrandy- chairs@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; Gonzalo
> >> Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-
> 09:
> >> (with COMMENT)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 28, 2019, at 4:53 AM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker
> >> <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> […]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> --
> >>> COMMENT:
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> I share the question of why this is Informational and why the
> >>> shepherd writeup doesn't explain (the writeup says little more than
> "yes" and "no").
> >>>
> >>
> >> This was discussed quite a bit in the WG and prior to chartering. The
> >> reasoning for “informational” was two-fold:
> >>
> >> 1) The draft does not (or was not supposed to) define new or modify
> >> existing protocols. It talks about how one can assemble existing
> >> building blocks to make the right things happen, not how to build new
> >> blocks. So it seemed like the most appropriate status was either
> “informational” or “BCP"
> >>
> >> 2) Two of those “existing protocols”, namely ZRTP [RFC6189] and SDP
> >> Security Descriptions [RFC4568] are not particularly well regarded
> >> among some of our security experts, who indicated objections to using
> >> them in a new standards track document or BCP.
> >
> > Was there a reason the WG didn't include these references/caveats to the
> ZRTP and SSDP SD given an improved understanding of their security
> properties since they were published?
> >
> > Roman
> >
> >> From a strictly historical perspective, the WG originally thought it
> >> needed to make a normative update to RFC5124. This was to be done is
> >> a separate tightly-scoped draft to progress in MMUSIC, since
> >> SIPBRANDY was not chartered to make normative changes to anything.
> >> However, later discussion suggested such a change was not necessary,
> >> and the separate draft was abandoned.
> >>
> >> I agree that the shepherd report or (my preference) the draft itself
> >> should make this more clear. Perhaps some words could be added to
> section 1.1?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Ben (who has no unexpired hats relevant to this conversation).