Re: [tram] Allow TURN to forward inbound connectivity checks without permission

Simon Perreault <> Sun, 01 April 2018 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262AD126DFF for <>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RWjckcUe0rWt for <>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E751126DCA for <>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q71-v6so11247158oic.6 for <>; Sun, 01 Apr 2018 09:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HJOvIYf0ySfy36f9gEaDvIk3sH3qCdygcpbz2M7YIXU=; b=Gbni0fBChd6fkt6mpDvSjKxHbaJiMqUsABB8R9c9E8LifdBGS1BZK94t2sGPDCLpIj dgqLoDD9qhQBAl/N+iWGpXCQxTtltwSLlx0Hj09+zc/ZL9oJ/3EJUKYV7u7nLkLr9uJy SBTNqO/KW7tQk2eCW7yrT+cHLAja6Bvkq7DN65VYjn8etYj6tEzq4NWZcl7Ejgz66kcz 73/xQ+Q5FWQDncsT46uZmHW5MIpmOsuha4SZtBjVEF/Jq+iaQATLLbt7adiUPO+aq2Rc pbmWLcLDu6L7UeUHGyT1mE5fJg+f2TJ9n37z5Xrp9tn0KsdP8XV39eLwnLcr7EtGPtyh nQ4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HJOvIYf0ySfy36f9gEaDvIk3sH3qCdygcpbz2M7YIXU=; b=HcVfl2B7Fc6tcAKYILrvetz4xXNIM5nPPRxcerT5HWrNrdhkIbN/6MzjIWOYmiq322 zcoPkP/patE0VxVXVVnxQirxeFmaYgUExq132VXZOf2IDEeABc3fsXzHJTK/fGR4HcSw drBy9RyHrB0UkH2ZIsFta/GsXWhY5Odwz0Atv/AYN3z9xaPpYxkjwx10SzluDpPX8/ob ndzg54a7p+9k+XnokI2mbaL43w9dtAq53fNLsZQqXwVej56mdfJ7qEWWJtp1vCQyG45V ASKHkoPHpM2vi9FZY5MUHqkr745iN1c22IorAfjHucI9PiyysapuRj/D3eb00AQvvfVS PpGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDdmaymTT1li7UKbXXAr2KN2vwNwu/tD6GH9XwdL1xX5il5T/tT zYQ3K4czUxUMXvnO5d4qQtXlsd0Q0+5/y3xo5FV41Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+6VzpZ7Qq1/goVbZVcEXgmdFskHvGd4RlUkr18hwG635SDBef/n9hu+tlXRTaH3WIiPa18VERpj4DPJcQzCcs=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:d0d1:: with SMTP id j78-v6mr3377073oiy.52.1522601799534; Sun, 01 Apr 2018 09:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 09:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Simon Perreault <>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 12:56:18 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Justin Uberti <>
Cc: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <>, Brandon Williams <>, Nils Ohlmeier <>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>, Eric Rescorla <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000657af70568cc5bf0"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tram] Allow TURN to forward inbound connectivity checks without permission
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 16:56:42 -0000

2018-03-31 18:50 GMT-04:00 Justin Uberti <>:

> As Brandon says, the ufrag/pwd info could be posted along with the address
> of the server, so while this raises the bar, it doesn't solve the problem.
> I agree with Brandon that the only reasonable way to completely contain
> this is some sort of server policy, e.g., some time window or session count
> after which the permission bypass expires, meaning that someone running a
> server would have to be continually requesting new allocations and posting
> their address/credentials.

Do we need to completely contain this? Is there actually a problem with the

Allowing STUN in allows someone to run a server if and only if the protocol
masquerades as STUN. It doesn't allow a user to run an arbitrary server.
For this to be exploitable, the user would also need to control the clients
in some way.

I can't think of a way this could be exploited practically. Maybe I lack