> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:23 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Dean Willis'; 'Cullen Jennings'; 'SIP IETF'; 
> 'Uzelac,Adam'; 'Elwell,John'
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Thoughts on SIP Identity issues
> 
> Hmm, well I think almost anything a proxy can legally do, can also be 
> applied maliciously. For example, a proxy can:
> 
> * change the target of the request to someone not at all 
> expected; e.g., 
> I call the sales number for company 1 and it gets forwarded 
> to company 2 
> sales number. Frankly, this attack is far worse than any codec change.
> 
> * proxy can drop my requests and cause calls to fail
> 
> * proxy can insert via headers pointing to incorrect previous 
> hops and 
> launch dos attacks
> 
> * proxy can modify via fields, causing responses to bypass servers 
> providing features, disrupting them
> 
> * proxy can discard record-routes in response; causing other 
> servers to 
> be bypasses for future requests. Consider the impact of this on a 
> billing system that is built off another proxy which now 
> never sees a BYE
> 
> and so on. My your metric, since I cannot differentiate 
> legitimate from 
> illegitimate uses of modification of these fields (rr, via, 
> r-uri), all 
> uses must be prevented.
> 
> Clearly this doesn't hold water.

Good point.  I guess you're saying a proxy can be evil, and
a B2BUA can be evil.

4474 only allows detecting if a proxy is evil, based on the
stuff that 4474 signs and considers important.

I (continue to) suggest that we need a way to detect if an
SBC is evil, based on stuff that is signed and is considered
important.

-d


> -Jonathan R.
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Wing wrote:
> >> On Jul 31, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is this an ATTACK though? I don't think it is.
> >> If the end user can't tell the difference between a malicious  
> >> application of the technique and a beneficial application of the  
> >> technique, then the technique itself is  an attack vector 
> and should  
> >> be eliminated from the protocol.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > -d
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   499 Thornall St.
> Cisco Fellow                                   Edison, NJ 08837
> Cisco, Voice Technology Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (408) 902-3084
> http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
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