Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect (SPEERMINT) Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures
draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-09
Yes
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-03-02)
Unknown
2.3.1. Threats to SF Confidentiality
o Password cracking - the challenge-response authentication
mechanism of SIP can be attacked with offline dictionary attacks.
Did you mean SIP Digest? If yes, please say so.
With such attacks, an attacker tries to exploit weak passwords
that are used by incautious users.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-03-27)
Unknown
Overall this document appears to provide a helpful summary of the relevant security issues. Are the suggested countermeasures meant to be exhaustive? (Even I can think of additional countermeasures, such as limiting authentication attempts and obscuring certain error messages to help mitigate directory harvesting attacks.) It would be good to explain whether or not the list is exhaustive. Regarding denial of service attacks, please expand "DoS" on first use and cite RFC 4732. Various other acronyms are not expanded on first use (e.g., SSP). Citations are not provided for several technologies (e.g., ZRTP). The document contains several statements that are dubious (e.g., that scalability requirements lead SSPs to use UDP instead of TCP -- perhaps they need to write better code?) or that might not be true for much longer (e.g., that DNSSEC has not been widely deployed on the Internet -- at least qualify this by saying "at the time of this writing"). As far as I can see, these statements are not material to the recommendations provided in this document, and could be safely removed. [this comment is from Alexey Melnikov] In Section 2.3.1, do you mean "SIP digest" in the text about "the challenge-response authentication mechanism of SIP can be attacked with offline dictionary attacks"?
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-08-19)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-03-02)
Unknown
SQL injection is mentioned first in section 4. Suggest adding a quick description in section 2 somewhere. Section 4.5 only talks about IPsec and (D)TLS. Have SIP folks given up entirely on message oriented protection?