ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] [draft-melnikov-sieve-external-lists] 3. Security Considerations, Paragraph 2

2009-09-04 06:31:34
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Alexey
Melnikov<alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com> wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

<blockquote
cite='http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists-00.txt'>
 A failure to retrieve data due to the server storing the external
 list membership being down or otherwise inaccessible may alter the
 result of Sieve processing.  So implementations SHOULD treat a
 temporary failure to retrieve or verify external list membership in
 the same manner as a temporary failure to retrieve a Sieve script.
 For example, if the Sieve script is stored in the Lightweight
 Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and the script can't be retrieved
 when a message is processed, then the agent performing Sieve
 processing can, for example, assume that the script doesn't exist or
 delay message delivery until the script can be retrieved
 successfully.  External list memberships should be treated as if they
 are a part of the script itself, so a temporary failure to retrieve
 them should be handled in the same way as a temporary failure to
 retrieve the Sieve script itself.
</blockquote>

how does this error handling behaviour improve security?


This improves consistency of Sieve processing.

i fail to see why this is seen as a security issue

could anyone provide an example illustrating how an attacker could use
an implementation inconsistency in error handling to compromise a
sieve server?

If there is WG consensus to change this, then I would argue we would need a
mechanism to detect membership verification failures using a new test (or a
modifier to existing one).

what are the advantages of this new error handling language to that
already established in RFC 5228?

i fail to see the security reasoning justifying deviation from the
error handling laid down in the basic Sieve langauge specification

could anyone provide an example illustrating how flaws in the original
Sieve specification's approach to error handling necessitate the
adoption of an alternative strategy in this new specification?

- robert
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve