|
RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-uta-xmpp-05
2015-04-04 01:31:32
Hi Peter,
This text looks good
Thanks
Roni
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet [mailto:peter(_at_)andyet(_dot_)net]
Sent: 04 April, 2015 12:33 AM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-uta-xmpp(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 'XMPP Working
Group'; uta(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-uta-xmpp-05
On 4/3/15 3:08 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
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.
I don't think that text is quite right. I suggest that we merge the
sections on
Authenticated Connections and Unauthenticated Connections, as follows:
3.4. Authenticated Connections
Both the core XMPP specification [RFC6120] and the "CertID"
specification [RFC6125] provide recommendations and requirements for
certificate validation in the context of authenticated connections.
This document does not supersede those specifications (e.g., it does
not modify the recommendations in [RFC6120] regarding the Subject
Alternative Names or other certificate details that need to be
supported for authentication of XMPP connections using PKIX
certificates).
Wherever possible, it is best to prefer authenticated connections
(along with SASL [RFC4422]), as already stated in the core XMPP
specification [RFC6120]. In particular, clients MUST authenticate
servers and servers MUST authenticate clients.
This document does not mandate that servers need to authenticate peer
servers, although such authentication is strongly preferred and
servers SHOULD authenticate each other. Unfortunately, in multi-
tenanted environments it can be extremely difficult to obtain or
deploy PKIX certificates with the proper Subject Alternative Names
(see [I-D.ietf-xmpp-dna] and [I-D.ietf-xmpp-posh] for details). To
overcome that difficulty, the Domain Name Associations (DNA)
specification [I-D.ietf-xmpp-dna] describes a framework for XMPP
server authentication methods, which include not only PKIX but also
DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) as defined in
[I-D.ietf-dane-srv] and PKIX over Secure HTTP (POSH) as defined in
[I-D.ietf-xmpp-posh]. These methods can provide a basis for server
identity verification when appropriate PKIX certificates cannot be
obtained or deployed.
Given the pervasiveness of eavesdropping [RFC7258] even an
unauthenticated connection might be better than an unencrypted
connection in these scenarios (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 others.
In particular for XMPP server-to-server interactions, 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 above are intended to
mitigate the residual need for unauthenticated connections in these
scenarios.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/
|
|