At Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:14:18 -0400,
Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

> > side's identity, than MITM attacks get blocked, because an MITM attack
> > requires replacing keys in both directions with the attacker's
> > key. Consider the following example, in which Alice is calling Bob,
> > but for some reason her fingerprint isn't signed:
> >
> >
> > Alice                      Attacker                    Bob
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Fingerprint=X (unsigned) ->
> >                                Fingerprint=A (unsigned) ->
> >
> >                             <- Fingerprint=Z (signed, Bob)
> > <- Fingerprint=Z (signed, Bob)
> >
> > So, Bob has no reliable way of knowing Alice's identity. However,
> > that's not sufficient to mount an MITM attack, which required that the
> > attacker to replace Bob's key Z with his own key A. But he can't do
> > that without replacing Bob's fingerprint, which would require the
> > ability to sign a message from Bob [0].
> 
> I don't think Dean is claiming a MitM attack is possible when
> 4474/4916 *is* used.  At least not in the definition of "MitM
> attack" where one side *thinks* it's secure but it's not.  Clearly a
> form of MitM attack can be trivially performed whereby neither side
> get signed requests, but still get fingerprints, but that's not a
> MitM attack in my book as much as it is a downgrade attack.  And
> that form of attack can be done on your example above, very easily,
> but then both Alice and Bob should know their media plane isn't
> secure.  And similar to TLS, Alice has to take care not to speak her
> PIN over the media plane to Bob, etc.
>
> But I think Dean's point is: if we can't get a 4474/4916 model to be
> useful in practice, then *neither* side will be using it in
> practice.  We want it to be used in practice, as much as possible.
> But he should chime in with what he meant. :)

Well, I don't know what Dean is claiming, but what *I* am claiming
is that MITM attacks aren't possible as long as at least one side
uses 4474/4916 and the other side checks the signature. And that
means that at least in the case of PSTN->SIP calls, we don't
have an inherent MITM problem. 

-Ekr
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to