Re: [tram] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-stun-origin-05: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Oleg,

On May 11, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 
>> For requests sent with authentication, I understand that the origin
>> attribute needs to be accurate in order for the client to authenticate.
>> In those cases, the STUN server can rely on the attribute it receives.
>> But for requests without authentication, what prevents the client from
>> lying?
> 
> if the client is lying, then the request will not be authenticated and
> it will be rejected - because the client's credentials will be
> incorrect.

My question was about requests without authentication, as I said. I assume the origin is not used for authentication in that case, since authentication is not performed.

> I see that many people cannot grasp that very simple
> concept.

I would appreciate if you would use a more respectful tone in the future.

Thanks,
Alissa

> There is no benefits in lying in this case. Think about
> ORIGIN as simply a logical virtual database name where the user
> account will be searched and against that database the credentials
> will be verified. This information is not sensitive, and lying is not
> giving you any unjust benefits. The only outcome that you can achieve
> by lying is screwing your own request - that's it.
> 
>> And if those requests are not (D)TLS-protected, what prevents them
>> from being modified in transit? I understand Alan to be saying that the
>> justification for the origin in this case is operational troubleshooting,
>> but if the server can't rely on the origin it receives, doesn't that make
>> it risky for the server to act on that information?
> 
> No, as I explained above.
> 
>> 
>> My additional concern is about the use of "logging" as a justification
>> for including and origin attribute. Logging in and of itself is not a
>> reasonable justification.
> 
> Why ?
> 
>> Alan's mail discussed the use of the origin for
>> operational troubleshooting, which seems like what might actually be
>> intended instead of "logging." In any event the purpose for the logging
>> either needs to be explained or "logging" should not be listed as a
>> justification.
> 
> Why ?
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tram mailing list
>> tram@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram