Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Sun, 07 March 2010 12:28 UTC
Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D9C3A8407 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 04:28:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uemDmX7EB5Mc for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 04:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8A43A8AE2 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 04:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [92.40.110.108] (92.40.110.108.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.110.108]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <S5Ob1wAu7j0J@rufus.isode.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:28:08 +0000
Message-ID: <4B939BBC.6040102@isode.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:27:40 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <4B8E515A.6060608@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100303103218.0ba092a0@resistor.net> <4B90ED1C.8040905@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20100305051249.09f24f38@resistor.net> <4B923E1E.4070201@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20100306054559.08fe2908@resistor.net> <4B92DEBC.9030209@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B92DEBC.9030209@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:28:06 -0000
Dave CROCKER wrote: > On 3/6/2010 11:05 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > >> The Last Call for draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03 ended yesterday. There >> wasn't >> any comments. This I-D will be evaluated by the IESG on March 11. I am >> waiting for a recommendation from Dave regarding the Secdir review. > > Folks, > > Feeling no strong resolve, myself, here's my current though: > > The relevant part of Steve Kent's review: > >> I could imagine security issues that might be associated with this >> document >> vs. 5321, since the security section of the latter document does not >> address >> any security concerns related to transfer of 8-bit data. For example, >> the >> handshake used to determine whether an SMTP sever support >> receipt/relay of >> 8-bit data might be used to target servers based on the lack of such >> support. >> One might even cite the use of this transport capability as facilitating >> malware transmission in e-mail attachments :. > > A Security section should cover security issues that are specific to that > specification; it should not contain general-purpose tutorial material > nor > should it contain material that is needed for other specification. It > other words, it should cover security issues that are new. > > I suppose there is a reasonable case to be made for some coverage of > materials that /should/ have been covered in another document, but > weren't, and are relevant to the current specification. But even that > concession makes the question of what to include a slippery slope, IMO. > > In any event... > > The 8bitmime option does not create the potential for using SMTP option > negotations as an attack vector, such as permitting discovery of which > servers support an option. I therefore think it better /not/ to cite > that in 1652bis. Given that this style of attack is not mentioned > elsewhere, I suppose a small enhancement to the current text would be > reasonable, such as: > > is not believed to > raise any security issues not already endemic in electronic mail and > present in fully conforming implementations of [RFC5321] {{ , > including > attacks facilitated by the presence of an option negotiation > mechanism.}} Works for me. > Even though 8bitmime is not a pure 'binary' mechanism, it does move > things into a binary realm. I therefore think that it /is/ reasonable > to cite the potential for facilitating attacks based on use of binary > data. Hence, I propose also adding the text: > > Exploitation by malware is facilitated by supporting binary data in > the > transfer. The 8BITMIME option does not provide a pure binary > transport, but > since it does transfer a nearly-binary object, there is some > possibility > that is could facilitate exploitations of this type. I am not convinced this is needed, as I would like to better understand what the issue is. However I also like detailed Security Considerations sections so I wouldn't object to adding this text either. BTW, Arnt and myself explained to Stephen Kent the difference between 8BITMIME and BINARYMIME. So I think he now understands that 8BITMIME is not appropriate for sending arbitrary binary data. > Anyone object, suggest different text, or additional text?
- [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Stephen Kent
- Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-i… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-i… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-i… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-i… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Barry Leiba
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Tony Finch
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-i… Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… S Moonesamy
- Re: [yam] [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ya… Stephen Kent