Re: [xmpp] IQ Handling vulnerabilities

Ashley Ward <ashley.ward@surevine.com> Mon, 10 February 2014 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ashley.ward@surevine.com>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB82C1A0831 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:05:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 NkJopb_Y7GMu for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1681A0033 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:05:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n12so2526879wgh.2 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:05:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:message-id:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to; bh=52rSTaPq3WDtycbDLg+0liWE5rjqqhy0aipGf1vD818=; b=D08Yoq9EEuFgbTSw1M87TR7KZ6LTlBm31EIQIxW3Nmks9Jn9anaL3CQXB55FhCLHl5 e8RebIWVXqpy8piN55dZ1zL+8Xy+DoZD06Sl6EOcwy1qNQJXAW8nEj8gDtJE7E5FjcSj UKgQC33eZ3lnW4V4keCYT9sDVBZcJWgysjrTLLA8ICDO/r4OW2CQlgL/Tt3PeUJociDD F2HSamxlLVvQksFKvSE5K8yaOOJ/tgDdT8XsHrmZhRmhraGyvJUz42Qij/0s1NYGjZLQ ZYVsAKAfdtEWZFy/DQq1Zoy1x6bfROd/VkeCjpBCvX6wzDl9WxnTAWgc/A4QAVcqvCVn AgMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMjuBeXacL8ztCgpauWqZCgaxH/mtrPZao0CxJTfx3CTr0PtcSijDwyt4rUc1dM36k58ng
X-Received: by 10.180.7.227 with SMTP id m3mr10211272wia.59.1392037530018; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:05:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.11] (host86-129-24-95.range86-129.btcentralplus.com. [86.129.24.95]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 12sm35225870wjm.10.2014.02.10.05.05.27 for <xmpp@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 05:05:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Ashley Ward <ashley.ward@surevine.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8113C84B-D761-4E05-9731-D8D3E21A6B86"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Message-Id: <AF865786-93A0-4B77-AAE9-34A40DC72181@surevine.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:05:26 +0000
References: <CAOb_FnxS-dMT85N7LHj5M9JWk3pL85=ugrDqaT7j5d28HBr0Cw@mail.gmail.com> <CF194491.38AD3%jhildebr@cisco.com> <2F5E925F-021D-408E-91D9-3CC5BEB6BEC6@nostrum.com> <48F4D361-4403-47E6-862D-FBDDDEBCC642@xnyhps.nl> <CF1A369C.38BE2%jhildebr@cisco.com> <CAKHUCzyCwKbmnUoXLHW=XzYbiFrcg-dQsDojGUnA-_r3qK+_Vg@mail.gmail.com> <12420410-2615-4A32-8998-AFF19D4EF7BC@xnyhps.nl> <CAKHUCzw6r4vZOHmLm62YgQAj72EjiXbqc8ZShC4=pJ5gxff31w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOb_FnybyUd69ayMPiLZd1i1n4=cnPA6NB-d3BqguSRH3cJLtA@mail.gmail.com> <A5EDDD45-EADA-43D8-B1C8-80C72F1C4AAC@xnyhps.nl>
To: XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <A5EDDD45-EADA-43D8-B1C8-80C72F1C4AAC@xnyhps.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Subject: Re: [xmpp] IQ Handling vulnerabilities
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:05:33 -0000

On 10 Feb 2014, at 12:12, Thijs Alkemade <thijs@xnyhps.nl> wrote:
> I’ve submitted an I-D about this issue here, to help discussion at IETF 89:
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alkemade-xmpp-iq-validation/

Just wondering if it's possible to use a stronger section title than “Recommendations”, or is that standard IETF I-D heading wording?

—
Ash