Re: [stir] Permitted spoofing

"Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz> Tue, 11 June 2013 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.rosen@neustar.biz>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F362521F8FE5 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37PeUVShPCPV for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from neustar.com (mx1.neustar.com [156.154.17.104]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D322C21F85D1 for <stir@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=neustar.biz; s=neustarbiz; t=1370956390; x=1686316101; q=dns/txt; h=From:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Language: Content-Type:Content-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=JY/SK7EIT+ fTwrPD7/bMYCxa4obLq5kFXe+fx03NBGA=; b=mI9ikl79HpldnqTPIWlOsCxSg+ IC2eLisQO95ZEPBdgtKwrXZPclLvre1E8bWyTQhhKcVDtofi6FyzL/PjdPKQ==
Received: from ([10.31.13.242]) by stihiron1.va.neustar.com with ESMTP with TLS id J041124052.26092514; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:13:09 -0400
Received: from STNTEXHC10.cis.neustar.com (10.31.58.69) by STNTEXCHHT03.cis.neustar.com (10.31.13.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:04:58 -0400
Received: from stntexmb12.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.2.76]) by stntexhc10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.4.66]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:04:53 -0400
From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
To: Michael Hammer <michael.hammer@yaanatech.com>
Thread-Topic: [stir] Permitted spoofing
Thread-Index: AQHOY+81QVR2lI4PHEaFqY34c3fHK5ksZHCAgAADK4CAAAkdAIAD3+GAgAANmgCAAGWCAA==
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:04:53 +0000
Message-ID: <E87A471D-050B-411C-BF52-0EEE66253DAF@neustar.biz>
References: <5DDB5576-CAEF-453C-8C90-0C6709DAD84F@neustar.biz> <172B7D9C-1E4F-49C7-90E5-5848682625CF@cs.columbia.edu> <15ABDCF6-F127-4E8B-807F-FC3FAD78B905@oracle.com> <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3A03DAAEF@ex2k10mb2.corp.yaanatech.com> <E18AFC23-F162-4EEE-AAC1-FEA53438E15A@oracle.com> <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3A03DB34C@ex2k10mb2.corp.yaanatech.com> <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3A03DB471@ex2k10mb2.corp.yaanatech.com>
In-Reply-To: <00C069FD01E0324C9FFCADF539701DB3A03DB471@ex2k10mb2.corp.yaanatech.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.33.193.6]
x-ems-proccessed: R64IxjzeHPwwd+efoj3ZcA==
x-ems-stamp: +0z6qVJnk43n/wWwsuPJPA==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <D7978DBC65A5F94F8BB4B8C4EC5F4B8D@neustar.biz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>, "hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com" <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>, "stir@ietf.org" <stir@ietf.org>, "hgs@cs.columbia.edu" <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [stir] Permitted spoofing
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stir>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:05:31 -0000

Of course!  

On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:01 AM, Michael Hammer <michael.hammer@yaanatech.com> wrote:

> But, I'll note having following the thread, that the issue seems to devolve
> to 
> who wants to assert the presented caller ID value, sign it and 
> be ultimately responsible for the prior chain of events.
> 
> Mike
> 
> p.s.  I see a re-hash of prior history of various existing headers, but
> wondering 
> if using what didn't work before amounts to hitting ones head against a wall
> and wondering why it hurts?
> I'm not against trying to get existing to work, but don't necessarily want
> to repeat history.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:stir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Michael Hammer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:13 AM
> To: hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com
> Cc: Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz; stir@ietf.org; hgs@cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [stir] Permitted spoofing
> 
> If you stop it at the start, wouldn't that solve some fraction of the
> problem?
> 
> Do we know how many calls are spoofed from the start versus from
> redirections?
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 10:03 PM
> To: Michael Hammer
> Cc: hgs@cs.columbia.edu; Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz; stir@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [stir] Permitted spoofing
> 
> 
> I think the hope was to proactively prevent a bogus call from succeeding, as
> opposed to reactively hunting down the perpetrators after it happened.  The
> latter case should be possible now, since CDRs record enough to backtrack to
> the upstream provider, and that provider's CDRs can find its upstream
> provider, etc.
> 
> -hadriel
> 
> 
> On Jun 8, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Michael Hammer <michael.hammer@yaanatech.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Question:  Do we really care how many redirections occurred in the 
>> middle network hops if we know what the original source of the signaling
> was?
>> 
>> Put another way, if we have a legitimate scape-goat for a problem 
>> call, do you need to catch all the stooges all at once?
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> stir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir