Re: draft-dtls-sdp: Allow offerer to establish DTLS association before it has received the SDP answer?

Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.mmusic
Message-ID <D549E2A8.1D08C%[email protected]>
Hi,

>>I have updated the PR. The text now allows the offerer to establish the
>>DTLS
>> association before it has received the SDP answer, but that any media
>> received before the answer shall be considered unauthenticated.
>>
>> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp/pull/31
>>
>> I intend to submit a new version of the draft soon, so please indicate
>>if
>> you don¹t agree with the text ­ together with text that you (and
>>hopefully
>> others) would agree too :)
>
>Roman is right here, this is going too far.  As ekr points out, we
>over-corrected by insisting that the handshake not proceed without the
>answer, but doesn't mean that we should let the handshake complete
>without knowing to whom we are completing the handshake with.
>
>There is a case for taking the data you receive and holding it until
>you get an answer; it would be OK to allow that, though it would need
>some careful writing.
>
>However, I believe that the reason we've been asked to do this is in
>aid of actually playing out media from a completely unauthenticated
>source.  That's the point at which this goes pear-shaped.  The whole
>point of this is to provide integrity, and that doesn't happen if an
>attacker gets to provide the first few bits of a stream.
>
>I realize that this makes Cullen's use case harder, but several
>alternative solutions have been offered.
>
>My preference is to forbid handshake completion until the anchors by
>which the handshake is assessed (a=fingerprint, a=tls-id) are
>available.

If I understand correctly, you seem to suggest that we allow the handshake
to ³proceed² (see 1st paragraph of your reply), but not to ³complete². If
so, which endpoint is responsible to make sure that it doesn¹t ³complete²?

>Second in preference to that is to allow received data to be saved,
>but not used.  In no circumstance should we allow data to be *sent*.

I assume that also includes e.g., SCTP messages, i.e., in case of a WebRTC
Data Channel it wouldn¹t be allowed to establish the SCTP association.


Regards,

Christer







>It's very hard to guarantee that an error that is detected on the peer
>will actually result in the connection terminating in a reasonable
>period of time.  The current draft is vague on this point.
>
>p.s., Tim's comment about media vs. data needs to be addressed.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.