> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Hannes Tschofenig > > SIP Identity works nice in certain environments. The fields that are > covered by the digital signature calculation in SIP Identity have not > been chosen arbitrarily. When an SBC changes some of the protected > fields then there are obviously problems.
Actually, I think some of the fields chosen for signing did NOT need to be signed, and added nothing tangible; or if they did, the result of it making it unusable in many environments was not worth the specific security issue(s) they prevented. (specifically I am talking about the Contact, CSeq, and Call-Id) There are plenty of valuable SIP Requests which SBCs don't change bodies/From/To of that could use 4474 as is today, if it did not sign those 3 fields. For example a MESSAGE request (which does not even have a Contact, but would fail the Call-Id changing). Or a SUBSCRIBE. Or an INFO. :) > Imagine a mechanism that wouldn't compute a signature at all then SBCs > could do whatever they want. > Good for SBCs; not so good for security. Depends on how you define secure, at what layer, and most importantly for whom, but we don't need to get into that on this list. :) -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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
