Re: [sipcore] rfc4244bis #44 (new): 4244bis-02: security section misleading

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEF13A6998 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:16:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 t1RQNbeku5tx for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:16:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F38D3A699A for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:15:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywp6 with SMTP id 6so3442316ywp.31 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:14:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fWxukVodGz3XedGmE/fjw/m843RfLyDlQoqV7n+i4cs=; b=U6q9G26UyMrC6IMaL/XaiLf4A4DAQwFPeP1OUSr80iDgrzp+gvaXd1k2+Be1weUIck M/QtuaEG5Gqr//huR6mDE3V0M7t91wZpjVqsFDoR7XCfpiyljtaMl9MdOcdUCxw0K2i4 lQdNauKI1jH9jz4pdmbpRTJ4H2lIa/ywsLY1w=
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=wlSKwJGhNjB4vhd2Ulb7bPI0ZZn1fSOmr0WQzNfnyOk9y5f5UtA2MY9x9y/1oG4pdg YeoRie5guPiRAVo9zzY34zy4hCZ8jmkrvmbt6YDIz4hDRoQxyOhXdAGtP8yfp/iHp7i8 2bOa0sm8h0ki1MwsFTXVOhIhHxJxY04I+J5fQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.51.15 with SMTP id d15mr4339190ybk.33.1289196868088; Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.95.35 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:14:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <064.81e343374deecdf821a6bab2507a302c@tools.ietf.org>
References: <064.81e343374deecdf821a6bab2507a302c@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:14:28 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTimoriwsEvTTvmiX0_RSkzPUEiEJVXknnmz+O0nL@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: sipcore issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] rfc4244bis #44 (new): 4244bis-02: security section misleading
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 06:16:20 -0000

I agree.  Removing this is consistent with some of the earlier text we
removed in terms handling and implications of missing information.

Mary.

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:41 PM, sipcore issue tracker
<trac@tools.ietf.org> wrote:
> #44: 4244bis-02: security section misleading
>
>  Section 9 says:
>    With the level of security provided by TLS (SEC-req-3), the
>    information in the History-Info header can thus be evaluated to
>    determine if information has been removed by evaluating the indices
>    for gaps (SEC-req-1, SEC-req-2).  It would be up to the application
>    to define whether it can make use of the information in the case of
>    missing entries.
>
>  No, TLS doesn't do that.  TLS only guarantees you that the next-hop or
>  previous-hop is who its cert claims it to be (assuming you trust its
>  anchor), and prevents tampering by something in-between you and that
>  previous-hop or next-hop.  That doesn't mean that previous-hop or next-
>  hop, or some upstream/downstream entity beyond it, did not modify the H-I
>  entries - including in ways which you cannot possibly detect.  For example
>  it could have renumbered them, changed their content, etc.
>
>  This section-9 paragraph is wrong, and we won't be able to satisfy the
>  security requirements in appendix A.1  That's *OK*.  We're not going to
>  get better than that.  In fact, we basically need that behavior, since we
>  need PSTN Gateways to be able to generate H-I entries based on ISUP info
>  (even for numbers they don't own); and we need Diversion interworked to
>  H-I too.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  hkaplan@…               |       Owner:
>     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  minor                   |   Milestone:  milestone1
> Component:  rfc4244bis              |     Version:  2.0
>  Severity:  In WG Last Call         |    Keywords:
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/44>
> sipcore <http://tools.ietf.org/sipcore/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>