On 4/3/15 2:47 PM, Roni Even wrote:
Hi Peter,
The new text address my comments, I just have a proposal on section 3.5 see
inline
<snip/>
Section 3.4 may look like authentication is a MUST but section 3.5
talks about unauthenticated connections
Well, there are client-to-server connections and server-to-server
connections in
XMPP. The former need to be authenticated and the latter do not (although
we
are working on ways to make authentication easier and more pervasive for
server-to-server connections). I thought we had captured that in the text,
but
perhaps not.
[Roni Even] Maybe start section 3.5 saying that it is only about server to
server connection, currently the end of the section says " this at least
enables encryption of server-to-server connections." But I did not
understand it as saying that this section is only about server to server
connection.
Well, it *mostly* applies to server-to-server connections (there are
cases with multi-tenanted environments where something like DANE also
helps for client-to-server connections). The whole topic is messy on the
client side because of bad user habits about click-through security,
trust on first use, overriding defaults, etc. Here is a proposed change.
OLD
Given the pervasiveness of passive eavesdropping, even an
unauthenticated connection might be better than an unencrypted
connection (this is similar to the "better than nothing security"
approach for IPsec [RFC5386]). Unauthenticated connections include
connections negotiated using anonymous Diffie-Hellman algorithms or
using self-signed certificates, among other scenarios. In
particular, because of current deployment challenges for
authenticated connections between XMPP servers (see
[I-D.ietf-xmpp-dna] and [I-D.ietf-xmpp-posh] for details), it can be
reasonable for XMPP server implementations to accept unauthenticated
connections when Server Dialback keys [XEP-0220] are used; although
such keys on their own provide only weak identity verification (made
stronger through the use of DNSSEC [RFC4033]), this at least enables
encryption of server-to-server connections.
NEW
Although as just described authentication of the receiving entity is
either mandatory (for client-to-server connections) or strongly
preferred (for server-to-server connections), given the pervasiveness
of eavesdropping [RFC7258] even an unauthenticated connection might
be better than an unencrypted connection (this is similar to the
"better than nothing security" approach for IPsec [RFC5386]).
Unauthenticated connections include connections negotiated using
anonymous Diffie-Hellman algorithms or using self-signed
certificates, among other scenarios.
At present there are deployment challenges for authenticated
connections between XMPP servers, especially in multi-tenanted
environments (see [I-D.ietf-xmpp-dna] and [I-D.ietf-xmpp-posh] for
details). In some of these scenarios, it can be reasonable for XMPP
server implementations to accept unauthenticated but encrypted
connections when Server Dialback keys [XEP-0220] are used; such keys
on their own provide only weak identity verification (made stronger
through the use of DNSSEC [RFC4033]), but this at least enables
encryption of server-to-server connections. The Domain Name
Associations (DNA) prooftypes described in the previous section are
intended to mitigate the residual need for unauthenticated
connections in these scenarios.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/