[AVT] Re: SRTP MAC question

[Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>]

This seems completely reasonable to me. Especially
about the part re security novices.

	  Mike

Steven M. Bellovin writes:
 > In message <E18aoCr-000NW2-00@psg.com>, Allison Mankin writes:
 > > What I request
 > 
 > >here allows them to have their requirement, it just asks them to
 > >substantiate it.  In addition, it takes the outcome of the security
 > >analysis and ensures that the higher risk of easy integrity attacks is
 > >not accidentally imposed by default on applications that may not have
 > >the tradeoff made by the SRTP design as written currently.
 > 
 > Put another way -- and you can quote me on this -- I'm quite willing
 > to accept nominally-insecure options under the following circumstances:
 > 
 > 	*) There is a secure option described in the RFC;
 > 
 > 	*) The RFC clearly delineates the circumstances under which the
 > 	less-secure option is advisable;
 > 
 > 	*) There is a clear, explicit analysis to show why it's needed
 > 	in some circumstances;
 > 
 > 	*) There's a thorough explanation of the risks incurred by
 > 	opting for this choice.
 > 
 > In other words -- make sure implementors who aren't security experts 
 > understands the cost-benefit tradeoff.
 > 
 > 
 > 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
 > 		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
 > 
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Audio/Video Transport Working Group
 > avt@ietf.org
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt