Re: draft-state-sip-relay-attack-00
Victor Pascual Ávila <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Janak [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:51 PM >> >> I am not sure I understand how accepting/not-accepting INVITEs from >> non-registered contacts makes it different, could you elaborate? > > Assume Bob is bad, Alice is the victim. > The setup for the attack is such that Bob sends an INVITE to/through Alice's domain, pretending to be Alice. Alice's domain challenges the INVITE, which Bob passes on to Alice, and using her challenge-response Bob challenge-responds to Alice's domain. Right? > > I am arguing that in common practice (in my particular market space, anyway), Alice's domain wouldn't accept Bob's spoofed INVITE to begin with. Because it requires Bob's UA to actually be Registered as Alice in order to send in an INVITE pretending to be Alice. As an example: what would proxy.com check upon receipt of Bob's spoofed INVITE over UDP (forging packet source ip and port)? Thanks! -- Victor Pascual Ávila _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip