> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan > Wing > > Thank you - this is the first description of a codec attack that > anyone has explained. > > So a beneficial change (adding a codec and doing transcoding for > the user) is okay, but a non-benficial change (removing a good- > sounding codec for the end equipment [wideband] or for the network > [iSAC]) is an attack?
I still don't buy it. Honestly, exactly how much benefit does an attacker get by "downgrading" your codec? If there is no benefit/motivation for an attacker, why is this a threat we care about? Alternatively, there *is* motivation for removing codecs to *improve* your experience - this is in fact done right now in deployed networks, to force calls crossing low-bandwidth WAN links to use lower-bandwidth codecs (e.g., removing g711 in favor of g729, or re-re-ordering them in the m-line). In those cases the removal is beneficial. -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
