IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com> Tue, 20 March 2018 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <brandon.williams@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4306A126DEE for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 W_dnAY8LcGVM for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 701DC126D3F for <tram@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w2KF04eW012581; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:02:04 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=jan2016.eng; bh=3WVAK4+uOCfYEq7Ud6Dh9pytZQXPw88yiMDBFapPTyo=; b=TjnSO4ljlE30fXHl+rBh8RHUQeyCiTGIRpwZzxKU07JwJjpCszxf88NwOvERN6SKHb/m Q1QOsqFNBn5lMhxZobzveZCM1gZfX7BFvLhw3155pv6IS1KrEsN5cfjYXhgXjyFvvZC4 kOXeEHE/K6cLRpJfQGv5FxgVUoAulgXETRiFuXw4YvW4ioPnGhVHpVHpUAwURgyNUpIN x4fHMNMvrcN5YRyaIVyqwAPFw/1J7G66Xty5QdA117u6E+OlZPPMeg4X23T08CUjACtw R08Ct/Pw7UOmhw0xone9fKNgITqHuNHiVY44E4OZVbl9z0i0YmaaNbjfWUrcPt83LggJ aQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint3 ([96.6.114.86]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2grrygrt40-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:02:03 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w2KElqIu011960; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:02:02 -0400
Received: from prod-mail-relay14.akamai.com ([172.27.17.39]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2grxbw82yk-1; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:02:02 -0400
Received: from [172.28.118.62] (bowill.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.28.118.62]) by prod-mail-relay14.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A2F83438; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:02:01 +0000 (GMT)
To: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>, Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>
Cc: tram@ietf.org, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <CANO7kWDd8NZ=svBONwzo6sE5YH3Y5MAdWFP2CQMiTg7M-b47AQ@mail.gmail.com> <c9ef837c-bf7c-decb-9542-8a9ddeda67fd@akamai.com> <E3AB81FC-D841-47A6-A0E2-775461779770@mozilla.com> <CANO7kWA4tmK7Di59tsjvCBoDdh-jW83FxMpqQH1-iSPGLS=mpA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <8d57a9e5-5697-38f5-1b85-bf55930c6461@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:01:55 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANO7kWA4tmK7Di59tsjvCBoDdh-jW83FxMpqQH1-iSPGLS=mpA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-03-20_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=820 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803200172
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-03-20_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=786 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803200174
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/XtjkczHdJ0xwfZY--Gg-odrkXTY>
Subject: Re: [tram] Allow TURN to forward inbound connectivity checks without permission
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
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." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:02:21 -0000

On 03/20/2018 06:07 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Same opinion here. The point of permissions is to prevent TURN clients 
> from being able to run generic servers. It seems like always allowing 
> STUN packets would preserve this feature while solving the session 
> establishment latency problem. And would be quite a bit simpler to 
> implement than ufrag perms. Have your cake, eat it, and eat it a second 
> time.

If you want to prevent someone from running a server on the allocation 
you can't assume that a STUN-looking packet is actually legitimate, so 
some additional validations would be required. Perhaps packet size, 
rate-limiting, and max session counts are enough.

ufrag permissions didn't do enough to be more meaningful there, since it 
would be easy to post the ufrag somewhere public via a mechanism similar 
to dynamic DNS.

--Brandon

v2.20.3 | Report a Bug | By Email