End-to-middle Security in SIP

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SIP-T Status Update Jon Peterson Level(3) Communications 49 th IETF.
Advertisements

Indication of support for keep- alive draft-holmberg-sip-keep-03 Christer Holmberg
Presence, Security and Privacy. VON The Current Environment Many Faces of Security Authentication Verify someone is who they.
U N L E A S H I N G A S E R V I C E S R E N A I S S A N C E SIP SIP Security Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
Internet Telecom Expo September 20, 2000 SIP vs. H.323 SIP vs. H.323 Will the Real IP Telephony Please Stand Up? Jonathan Rosenberg.
SIP Interconnect Guidelines draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-02 David Hancock, Daryl Malas.
Authentication in SIP Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc Internet2 Member Meeting Los Angeles, CA - Nov 2002.
SIP issues with S/MIME and CMS Rohan Mahy SIP, SIPPING co-chair.
An Overview of SIP Security Dr. Samir Chatterjee Network Convergence Lab Claremont Graduate University
IETF 91 DISPATCH draft-jesske-dispatch-forking- answer-correlation-02 Roland Jesske.
9,825,461,087,64 10,91 6,00 0,00 8,00 SIP Identity Usage in Enterprise Scenarios IETF #64 Vancouver, 11/2005 draft-fries-sipping-identity-enterprise-scenario-01.txt.
SIP Greg Nelson Duc Pham. SIP Introduction Application-layer (signaling) control protocol for initiating a session among users Application-layer (signaling)
July 30, 2010SIPREC WG1 SIP Call Control - Recording Extensions draft-johnston-siprec-cc-rec-00 Alan Johnston Andrew Hutton.
SIP Action Referral Rifaat Shekh-Yusef Cullen Jennings Alan Johnston Francois Audet 1 IETF 80, SPLICES WG, Prague March 29, 2011.
Security and DICOM Lawrence Tarbox, Ph.D. Chair, DICOM Working Group 14 Siemens Corporate Research.
Jun Li DHCP Option for Access Network Information draft-lijun-dhc-clf-nass-option-01.
Cullen Jennings Certificate Directory for SIP.
1 SIPREC draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-00 An Architecture for Media Recording using SIP IETF SIPREC INTERIM – Sept 28 th 2010 Andrew Hutton.
Draft-elwell-sipping- redirection-reason-00 Author: John Elwell
1 © NOKIA Presentation_Name.PPT / DD-MM-YYYY / Initials Company Confidential Issues with HTTP Authentication for SIP Hisham Khartabil SIP WG IETF 59, Seoul.
Security, NATs and Firewalls Ingate Systems. Basics of SIP Security.
19 March 2003draft-burger-sipping-netann-05.txt1 Network Announcements with SIP IETF 56 Eric Burger
SIP Interconnect Guidelines draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-01 David Hancock, Daryl Malas.
SIP INFO Event Framework (draft-kaplan-sip-info-events-00) Hadriel Kaplan Christer Holmberg 70th IETF, Vancouver, Canada.
Rfc4474bis-01 IETF 90 (Toronto) STIR WG Jon. First principles (yet again) Separating the work into two buckets: 1) Signaling – What fields are signed,
Draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-00 1 End-to-middle Security in SIP Kumiko Ono NTT Corporation July 17, 2003.
SIP Extensions for Network-Asserted Caller Identity and Privacy within Trusted Networks Flemming Andreasen W. Marshall, K. K. Ramakrishnan,
SAML for SIP Hannes Tschofenig, Jon Peterson, James Polk, Douglas Sicker, Marcus Tegnander.
Using SAML for SIP H. Tschofenig, J. Peterson, J. Polk, D. Sicker, M. Tegnander.
End-to-middle Security in SIP draft-ietf-sipping-e2m-sec-reqs-03 draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-02 Kumiko Ono IETF60.
1/7 Clarification of Privacy Mechanism for SIP draft-munakata-sipping-privacy-clarified-00 Mayumi Munakata (NTT) Shida Schubert (NTT) IETF67 SIPPING 1.
Open issues from SIP list Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Callbacks draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback-02.txt H. Schulzrinne, H. Tschofenig, M. Patel.
End-to-middle Security in SIP draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-04 Kumiko Ono IETF62.
RFC3261 (Almost) Robert Sparks. SIPiT 10 2 Status of the New SIP RFC Passed IETF Last Call In the RFC Editor queue Author’s 48 hours review imminent IMPORTANT:
Name that User John Elwell Cullen Jennings Venkatesh Venkataramanan
March 20, 2007BLISS BOF IETF-681 Requirements and Implementation Options for the Multiple Line Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol.
Location Conveyance in SIP draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-01 James M. Polk Brian Rosen 2 nd Aug 05.
The Session Initiation Protocol - SIP
1 End-to-middle Security in SIP Kumiko Ono NTT Corporation March 1, 2004 draft-ietf-sipping-e2m-sec-reqs-01.txt draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-01.txt.
User Application Control (Keypress Events) SIPPING WG - IETF 53 Robert Fairlie-Cuninghame, Bert Culpepper, Jean-François Mulé.
Andrew Allen ROUTING OUT OF DIALOG REQUESTS draft-allen-dispatch-routing-out-of-dialog-request-01 Dispatch IETF 92 March 23 rd 2015.
SIP Extension Changes Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft IETF 52.
Session-Independent Policies draft-ietf-sipping-session-indep-policy-02 Volker Hilt Jonathan Rosenberg Gonzalo.
Authenticated Identity
SIP over MANETs Introduction to SIP SIP vs MANETs Open Issues
ECRIT Interim: SIP Location Conveyance
Kumiko Ono End-to-middle Security in SIP draft-ietf-sipping-e2m-sec-reqs-04 draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-03 Kumiko Ono.
draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-00 Ben Campbell
Request History Capability – Requirements & Solution
Examining Session Policy Topologies
IETF80, Prague Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) WG
Transcoding Framework
Request-URI Param Delivery
Requirements and Implementation Options for the Multiple Line Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-johnston-bliss-mla-req-00.
S/MIME T ANANDHAN.
SIP Identity issues John Elwell, Jonathan Rosenberg et alia
HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)
Network Announcements with SIP
draft-ipdvb-sec-01.txt ULE Security Requirements
ELECTRONIC MAIL SECURITY
SIP Authentication using CHAP-Password
Transcoding Framework
ELECTRONIC MAIL SECURITY
INSIPID Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Extension for logging and debugging (draft-kaithal-dispatch-sip-log-information-00 ) March 26th 2012 IETF -83.
Conferencing with MSRP
SIP Session Policies Volker Hilt
Process flow Kindly note: This presentation is automated – please do not click any of your mouse buttons or keyboard keys.
SIP Session Timer Glare Handling
An Architecture for Media Recording using the Session Initiation Protocol draft-ietf-siprec-architecture Andy Hutton
Presentation transcript:

End-to-middle Security in SIP draft-ietf-sipping-e2m-sec-reqs-01.txt draft-ono-sipping-end2middle-security-01.txt draft-ono-sipping-smime-keyreuse-00.txt Kumiko Ono ono.kumiko@lab.ntt.co.jp NTT Corporation March 1, 2004

Background Existing problems Usecases All proxies are not always trusted by UAs to view a message body. e.g. Access via a proxy in visited network. If e2e encryption is used, some services cannot be provided to UAs. e.g. logging services, FW control for SRTP. If only TLS is used, visited network proxy can look some private data. e.g. user-authentication data, user-location data. Usecases Logging services for enterprise use Location object conveyance [It is unclear if LOC always requires all proxies to be trusted]. FW traversal Early media disposition Session policy

Changes from ieft-sipping-e2m-sec-reqs-00 Reworked requirements to clarify the objectives; separated e2m confidentiality and integrity. Clarified the requirement for confidentiality, "The solution MUST work even with end-to-end encryption…”. It MUST be compatible with end-to-end encryption. Shared with the end user and selected proxy, if needed. It MUST NOT violate end-to-end encryption when the encrypted data does not need to be shared with any proxy servers. e.g., keying materials for SRTP in SDP I will add following requirement reflecting ML comment. UAs must be able to apply confidentiality and integrity protection to parts of the bodies that are only for a selected proxy.

Open issue for reqs. Should I add the requirement that a proxy to be allowed to delete the data that targets only for the proxy. My proposal No (Changed from the last IETF meeting) If the data is encrypted, UAC can set “handling=optional” in Content-Disposition to request UAS to ignore the e2m part of the body. If the data is signed but not encrypted, the body does not contain any private data. Therefore proxy does not need to delete it. This can keep the mechanism in RFC3261. The deleting is useful to reduce the data size, but not essential to maintain to security.

Proposed Mechanism This approach allows a UA to disclose message data to selected proxies while protecting the data from being seen by other proxies. End-to-middle encryption uses “S/MIME CMS envelopedData” for one/multiple recipients. An encrypted data for recipients. Data encrypted with a content-encryption-key (CEK). The CEK encrypted with each key-encryption-key (public keys) of recipients. e.g. a proxy, multiple proxies, proxy & UA. An indicator that specifies proxies which body it should inspect. Proposal: A new parameter in Content-Disposition Alternative: A new SIP header and Content-ID

Indicator of target data for intermediaries I prefer a new param in Content-Disposition over a new SIP header and Content-ID. A “required-entity” param in Content-Disposition indicates a proxy which data is required to view. No additional SIP header is required. Integrity protection of the indication is relatively simple. When there is a data for proxy, it is easier to inspect the data. Even there is no data for proxy, all bodies are inspected to find the param. A new header contains content-id which is needed to be viewed by the indicated proxy. When there is no data for proxy, it is easy to find that out. An additional header is required. Integrity protection of the indicator requires inner headers with signature. When there is a data for proxy, process for SIP header in addition to search Content-ID in MIME headers are required.

Example of option1: a new param in Content-Disposition INVITE From: : Content-Type: xxx Content-Disposition: session; handling=optional; required-entity=proxy1-uri e2m target body

Example of option 2: a new SIP header with Content-ID INVITE From: : Proxy-xxx: proxy1-uri; cid=1234 Content-Type: xxx Content-ID: 1234 e2m target body

Option 1 with integrity protection of the indicator INVITE From: : Content-Type: xxx Content-Disposition: session; handling=optional; required-entity=proxy1-uri e2m target body Signature

Option 2 with integrity protection of the indicator INVITE From: : Proxy-xxx: proxy1-uri; cid=1234 Content-Type: multipart/mixed Content-Type: message/sipfrag Content-Type: xxx Content-ID: 1234 From : Proxy-xxx: proxy1-uri; cid=1234 e2m target body Signature

Key reuse mechanism Efficient way to encrypt multiple message in a dialog. This is based on RFC3185. Please read the draft and send me your comments.

Next Steps I will brush up the reqs. draft Add analysis and categorization of usecases inband or out of band data target ( only proxy or both of proxy+UA ) I plan to continue to work on the mechanism drafts in the SIPPING/SIP WG.