| < draft-ietf-stir-problem-statement-02.txt | draft-ietf-stir-problem-statement-03.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group J. Peterson | Network Working Group J. Peterson | |||
| Internet-Draft NeuStar, Inc. | Internet-Draft NeuStar, Inc. | |||
| Intended status: Informational H. Schulzrinne | Intended status: Informational H. Schulzrinne | |||
| Expires: July 17, 2014 Columbia University | Expires: July 29, 2014 Columbia University | |||
| H. Tschofenig | H. Tschofenig | |||
| Nokia Siemens Networks | Nokia Siemens Networks | |||
| January 13, 2014 | January 25, 2014 | |||
| Secure Telephone Identity Problem Statement | Secure Telephone Identity Problem Statement | |||
| draft-ietf-stir-problem-statement-02.txt | draft-ietf-stir-problem-statement-03.txt | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| Over the past decade, Voice over IP (VoIP) systems based on SIP have | Over the past decade, Voice over IP (VoIP) systems based on SIP have | |||
| replaced many traditional telephony deployments. Interworking VoIP | replaced many traditional telephony deployments. Interworking VoIP | |||
| systems with the traditional telephone network has reduced the | systems with the traditional telephone network has reduced the | |||
| overall security of calling party number and Caller ID assurances by | overall security of calling party number and Caller ID assurances by | |||
| granting attackers new and inexpensive tools to impersonate or | granting attackers new and inexpensive tools to impersonate or | |||
| obscure calling party numbers when orchestrating bulk commercial | obscure calling party numbers when orchestrating bulk commercial | |||
| calling schemes, hacking voicemail boxes or even circumventing multi- | calling schemes, hacking voicemail boxes or even circumventing multi- | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on July 17, 2014. | This Internet-Draft will expire on July 29, 2014. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 16 ¶ | |||
| In many communication architectures that allow users to communicate | In many communication architectures that allow users to communicate | |||
| with other users, the need for identifying the originating party that | with other users, the need for identifying the originating party that | |||
| initiates a call or a messaging interaction arises. The desire for | initiates a call or a messaging interaction arises. The desire for | |||
| identifying the communication parties in the end-to-end communication | identifying the communication parties in the end-to-end communication | |||
| attempt derives from the need to implement authorization policies (to | attempt derives from the need to implement authorization policies (to | |||
| grant or reject call attempts) but has also been utilized for | grant or reject call attempts) but has also been utilized for | |||
| charging. While there are a number of ways to enable identification | charging. While there are a number of ways to enable identification | |||
| this functionality has been provided by the Session Initiation | this functionality has been provided by the Session Initiation | |||
| Protocol (SIP) [2] by using two main types of approaches, namely | Protocol (SIP) [2] by using two main types of approaches, namely | |||
| using P-Asserted-Identity (PAI) [5] and SIP Identity [1], which are | using P-Asserted-Identity (PAI) [4] and SIP Identity [1], which are | |||
| described in more detail in Section 5. The goal of these mechanisms | described in more detail in Section 5. The goal of these mechanisms | |||
| is to validate that originator of a call is authorized to claim an | is to validate that originator of a call is authorized to claim an | |||
| originating identifier. Protocols, like XMPP, use mechanisms that | originating identifier. Protocols, like XMPP, use mechanisms that | |||
| are conceptually similar to those offered by SIP. | are conceptually similar to those offered by SIP. | |||
| Although solutions have been standardized, it turns out that the | Although solutions have been standardized, it turns out that the | |||
| current deployment situation is unsatisfactory and, even worse, there | current deployment situation is unsatisfactory and, even worse, there | |||
| is little indication that it will be improved in the future. In [11] | is little indication that it will be improved in the future. In [10] | |||
| we illustrate what challenges arise. In particular, interworking | we illustrate what challenges arise. In particular, interworking | |||
| with different communication architectures (e.g., SIP, PSTN, XMPP, | with different communication architectures (e.g., SIP, PSTN, XMPP, | |||
| RTCWeb) or other forms of mediation breaks the end-to-end semantic of | RTCWeb) or other forms of mediation breaks the end-to-end semantic of | |||
| the communication interaction and destroys any identification | the communication interaction and destroys any identification | |||
| capabilities. Furthermore, the use of different identifiers (e.g., | capabilities. Furthermore, the use of different identifiers (e.g., | |||
| E.164 numbers vs. SIP URIs) creates challenges for determining who is | E.164 numbers vs. SIP URIs) creates challenges for determining who is | |||
| able to claim "ownership" for a specific identifier; although domain- | able to claim "ownership" for a specific identifier; although domain- | |||
| based identifiers (sip:user@example.com) might use certificate or | based identifiers (sip:user@example.com) might use certificate or | |||
| DNS-related approaches to determine who is able to claim "ownership" | DNS-related approaches to determine who is able to claim "ownership" | |||
| of the URI, telephone numbers do not yet have any similar mechanism | of the URI, telephone numbers do not yet have any similar mechanism | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 30 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 30 ¶ | |||
| easily act as customers, originating and transit providers. The | easily act as customers, originating and transit providers. The | |||
| problem is moreover not limited to voice communications, as growth in | problem is moreover not limited to voice communications, as growth in | |||
| text messaging has made it another vector for bulk unsolicited | text messaging has made it another vector for bulk unsolicited | |||
| commercial messaging relying on impersonation of a source telephone | commercial messaging relying on impersonation of a source telephone | |||
| number (sometimes a short code). For telephony, Caller ID spoofing | number (sometimes a short code). For telephony, Caller ID spoofing | |||
| has become common, with a small subset of entities either ignoring | has become common, with a small subset of entities either ignoring | |||
| abuse of their services or willingly serving to enable fraud and | abuse of their services or willingly serving to enable fraud and | |||
| other illegal behavior. | other illegal behavior. | |||
| For example, recently, enterprises and public safety organizations | For example, recently, enterprises and public safety organizations | |||
| [17] have been subjected to telephony denial-of-service attacks. In | [15] have been subjected to telephony denial-of-service attacks. In | |||
| this case, an individual claiming to represent a collections company | this case, an individual claiming to represent a collections company | |||
| for payday loans starts the extortion scheme with a phone call to an | for payday loans starts the extortion scheme with a phone call to an | |||
| organization. Failing to get payment from an individual or | organization. Failing to get payment from an individual or | |||
| organization, the criminal organization launches a barrage of phone | organization, the criminal organization launches a barrage of phone | |||
| calls, with spoofed numbers, preventing the targeted organization | calls, with spoofed numbers, preventing the targeted organization | |||
| from receiving legitimate phone calls. Other boiler-room | from receiving legitimate phone calls. Other boiler-room | |||
| organizations use number spoofing to place illegal "robocalls" | organizations use number spoofing to place illegal "robocalls" | |||
| (automated telemarketing, see, for example, the FCC webpage [18] on | (automated telemarketing, see, for example, the FCC webpage [16] on | |||
| this topic). Robocalls is a problem that has been recognized already | this topic). Robocalls are a problem that has been recognized | |||
| by various regulators, for example the Federal Tde Commission (FTC) | already by various regulators; for example, the Federal Trade | |||
| recently organized a robocall competition to solicit ideas for | Commission (FTC) recently organized a robocall competition to solicit | |||
| creating solutions that will block illegal robocalls [19]. Criminals | ideas for creating solutions that will block illegal robocalls [17]. | |||
| may also use number spoofing to impersonate banks or bank customers | Criminals may also use number spoofing to impersonate banks or bank | |||
| to gain access to information or financial accounts. | customers to gain access to information or financial accounts. | |||
| In general, number spoofing is used in two ways, impersonation and | In general, number spoofing is used in two ways, impersonation and | |||
| anonymization. For impersonation, the attacker pretends to be a | anonymization. For impersonation, the attacker pretends to be a | |||
| specific individual. Impersonation can be used for pretexting, where | specific individual. Impersonation can be used for pretexting, where | |||
| the attacker obtains information about the individual impersonated, | the attacker obtains information about the individual impersonated, | |||
| activates credit cards or for harassment, e.g., by causing utility | activates credit cards or for harassment, e.g., by causing utility | |||
| services to be disconnected, take-out food to be delivered, or by | services to be disconnected, take-out food to be delivered, or by | |||
| causing police to respond to a non-existing hostage situation | causing police to respond to a non-existing hostage situation | |||
| ("swatting", see [21]). Some voicemail systems can be set up so that | ("swatting", see [19]). Some voicemail systems can be set up so that | |||
| they grant access to stored messages without a password, relying | they grant access to stored messages without a password, relying | |||
| solely on the caller identity. As an example, the News International | solely on the caller identity. As an example, the News International | |||
| phone-hacking scandal [20] has also gained a lot of press attention | phone-hacking scandal [18] has also gained a lot of press attention | |||
| where employees of the newspaper were accused of engaging in phone | where employees of the newspaper were accused of engaging in phone | |||
| hacking by utilizing Caller ID spoofing to get access to a voicemail. | hacking by utilizing Caller ID spoofing to get access to a voicemail. | |||
| For numbers where the caller has suppressed textual caller | For numbers where the caller has suppressed textual caller | |||
| identification, number spoofing can be used to retrieve this | identification, number spoofing can be used to retrieve this | |||
| information, stored in the so-called Calling Name (CNAM) database. | information, stored in the so-called Calling Name (CNAM) database. | |||
| For anonymization, the caller does not necessarily care whether the | For anonymization, the caller does not necessarily care whether the | |||
| number is in service, or who it is assigned to, and may switch | number is in service, or who it is assigned to, and may switch | |||
| rapidly and possibly randomly between numbers. Anonymization | rapidly and possibly randomly between numbers. Anonymization | |||
| facilitates automated illegal telemarketing or telephony denial-of- | facilitates automated illegal telemarketing or telephony denial-of- | |||
| service attacks, as described above, as it makes it difficult to | service attacks, as described above, as it makes it difficult to | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 38 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 38 ¶ | |||
| and cheap to obtain, and if the organizations assigning identifiers | and cheap to obtain, and if the organizations assigning identifiers | |||
| cannot or will not establish the true corporate or individual | cannot or will not establish the true corporate or individual | |||
| identity of the entity requesting such identifiers, robocallers will | identity of the entity requesting such identifiers, robocallers will | |||
| still be able to switch between many different identities. | still be able to switch between many different identities. | |||
| The problem space is further complicated by a number of use cases | The problem space is further complicated by a number of use cases | |||
| where entities in the telephone network legitimately send calls on | where entities in the telephone network legitimately send calls on | |||
| behalf of others, including "Find-Me/Follow-Me" services. | behalf of others, including "Find-Me/Follow-Me" services. | |||
| Ultimately, any SIP entity can receive an INVITE and forward it any | Ultimately, any SIP entity can receive an INVITE and forward it any | |||
| other entity, and the recipient of a forwarded message has little | other entity, and the recipient of a forwarded message has little | |||
| means to ascertain which recipient a call should legitimately target. | means to ascertain which recipient a call should legitimately target | |||
| Also, in some cases, third parties may need to temporarily use the | (see [11]. Also, in some cases, third parties may need to | |||
| identity of another individual or organization, with full consent of | temporarily use the identity of another individual or organization, | |||
| the "owner" of the identifier. For example: | with full consent of the "owner" of the identifier. For example: | |||
| The doctor's office: Physicians calling their patients using their | The doctor's office: Physicians calling their patients using their | |||
| cell phones would like to replace their mobile phone number with | cell phones would like to replace their mobile phone number with | |||
| the number of their office to avoid being called back by patients | the number of their office to avoid being called back by patients | |||
| on their personal phone. | on their personal phone. | |||
| Call centers: Call centers operate on behalf of companies and the | Call centers: Call centers operate on behalf of companies and the | |||
| called party expects to see the Caller ID of the company, not the | called party expects to see the Caller ID of the company, not the | |||
| call center. | call center. | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 50 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 50 ¶ | |||
| be altered. | be altered. | |||
| 4.1. VoIP-to-VoIP Call | 4.1. VoIP-to-VoIP Call | |||
| For the IP-to-IP communication case, a group of service providers | For the IP-to-IP communication case, a group of service providers | |||
| that offer interconnected VoIP service exchange calls using SIP end- | that offer interconnected VoIP service exchange calls using SIP end- | |||
| to-end, but may also deliver some calls via circuit-switched | to-end, but may also deliver some calls via circuit-switched | |||
| facilities, as described in separate use cases below. These service | facilities, as described in separate use cases below. These service | |||
| providers use telephone numbers as source and destination | providers use telephone numbers as source and destination | |||
| identifiers, either as the user component of a SIP URI (e.g., | identifiers, either as the user component of a SIP URI (e.g., | |||
| sip:12125551234@example.com) or as a tel URI [8]. | sip:12125551234@example.com) or as a tel URI [7]. | |||
| As illustrated in Figure 1, if Alice calls Bob, the call will use SIP | As illustrated in Figure 1, if Alice calls Bob, the call will use SIP | |||
| end-to-end. (The call may or may not traverse the Internet.) | end-to-end. (The call may or may not traverse the Internet.) | |||
| +------------+ | +------------+ | |||
| | IP-based | | | IP-based | | |||
| | SIP Phone |<--+ | | SIP Phone |<--+ | |||
| | of Bob | | | | of Bob | | | |||
| |+19175551234| | | |+19175551234| | | |||
| +------------+ | | +------------+ | | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 46 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 46 ¶ | |||
| both the originating and terminating carrier to validate the call | both the originating and terminating carrier to validate the call | |||
| information. | information. | |||
| 5. Limitations of Current Solutions | 5. Limitations of Current Solutions | |||
| From the inception of SIP, the From header field value has held an | From the inception of SIP, the From header field value has held an | |||
| arbitrary user-supplied identity, much like the From header field | arbitrary user-supplied identity, much like the From header field | |||
| value of an SMTP email message. During work on [2], efforts began to | value of an SMTP email message. During work on [2], efforts began to | |||
| provide a secure origin for SIP requests as an extension to SIP. The | provide a secure origin for SIP requests as an extension to SIP. The | |||
| so-called "short term" solution, the P-Asserted-Identity header | so-called "short term" solution, the P-Asserted-Identity header | |||
| described in [5], is deployed fairly widely, even though it is | described in [4], is deployed fairly widely, even though it is | |||
| limited to closed trusted networks where end-user devices cannot | limited to closed trusted networks where end-user devices cannot | |||
| alter or inspect SIP messages and offers no cryptographic validation. | alter or inspect SIP messages and offers no cryptographic validation. | |||
| As P-Asserted-Identity is used increasingly across multiple networks, | As P-Asserted-Identity is used increasingly across multiple networks, | |||
| it cannot offer any protection against identity spoofing by | it cannot offer any protection against identity spoofing by | |||
| intermediaries or entities that allow untrusted entities to set the P | intermediaries or entities that allow untrusted entities to set the P | |||
| -Asserted-Identity information. An overview of addressing spam in | -Asserted-Identity information. An overview of addressing spam in | |||
| SIP, and explaining how it differs from simiilar problems with email, | SIP, and explaining how it differs from simiilar problems with email, | |||
| appeared in [9]. | appeared in [8]. | |||
| Subsequent efforts to prevent calling origin identity spoofing in SIP | Subsequent efforts to prevent calling origin identity spoofing in SIP | |||
| include the SIP Identity effort (the "long term" identity solution) | include the SIP Identity effort (the "long term" identity solution) | |||
| [1] and Verification Involving PSTN Reachability (VIPR) [15]. SIP | [1] and Verification Involving PSTN Reachability (VIPR) [13]. SIP | |||
| Identity attaches a new header field to SIP requests containing a | Identity attaches a new header field to SIP requests containing a | |||
| signature over the From header field value combined with other | signature over the From header field value combined with other | |||
| message components to prevent replay attacks. SIP Identity is meant | message components to prevent replay attacks. SIP Identity is meant | |||
| both to prevent originating calls with spoofed From headers and | both to prevent originating calls with spoofed From headers and | |||
| intermediaries, such as SIP proxies, from launching man-in-the-middle | intermediaries, such as SIP proxies, from launching man-in-the-middle | |||
| attacks to alter calls passing through. The VIPR architecture | attacks to alter calls passing through. The VIPR architecture | |||
| attacked a broader range of problems relating to spam, routing and | attacked a broader range of problems relating to spam, routing and | |||
| identity with a new infrastructure for managing rendezvous and | identity with a new infrastructure for managing rendezvous and | |||
| security, which operated alongside of SIP deployments. | security, which operated alongside of SIP deployments. | |||
| As we will describe in more detail below, both SIP Identity and VIPR | As we will describe in more detail below, both SIP Identity and VIPR | |||
| suffer from serious limitations that have prevented their deployment | suffer from serious limitations that have prevented their deployment | |||
| at significant scale, but they may still offer ideas and protocol | at significant scale, but they may still offer ideas and protocol | |||
| building blocks for a solution. | building blocks for a solution. | |||
| 5.1. P-Asserted-Identity | 5.1. P-Asserted-Identity | |||
| The P-Asserted-Identity header field of SIP [5] provides a way for | The P-Asserted-Identity header field of SIP [4] provides a way for | |||
| trusted network entities to share with one another an authoritative | trusted network entities to share with one another an authoritative | |||
| identifier for the originator of a call. The value of P-Asserted- | identifier for the originator of a call. The value of P-Asserted- | |||
| Identity cannot be populated by a user, though if a user wants to | Identity cannot be populated by a user, though if a user wants to | |||
| suggest an identity to the trusted network, a separate header (P | suggest an identity to the trusted network, a separate header (P | |||
| -Preferred-Identity) enables them to do so. The features of the P | -Preferred-Identity) enables them to do so. The features of the P | |||
| -Asserted-Identity header evolved as part of a broader effort to | -Asserted-Identity header evolved as part of a broader effort to | |||
| reach parity with traditional telephone network signaling mechanisms | reach parity with traditional telephone network signaling mechanisms | |||
| for selectively sharing and restricting presentation of the calling | for selectively sharing and restricting presentation of the calling | |||
| party number at the user level, while still allowing core network | party number at the user level, while still allowing core network | |||
| elements to know the identity of the user for abuse prevention and | elements to know the identity of the user for abuse prevention and | |||
| accounting. | accounting. | |||
| In order for P-Asserted-Identity to have these properties, it | In order for P-Asserted-Identity to have these properties, it | |||
| requires the existence of a trust domain as described in [4]. Any | requires the existence of a trust domain as described in [3]. Any | |||
| entity in the trust domain may add a P-Asserted-Identity header to a | entity in the trust domain may add a P-Asserted-Identity header to a | |||
| SIP message, and any entity in the trust domain may forward a message | SIP message, and any entity in the trust domain may forward a message | |||
| with a P-Asserted-Identity header to any other entity in the trust | with a P-Asserted-Identity header to any other entity in the trust | |||
| domain. If a trusted entity forwards a SIP request to an untrusted | domain. If a trusted entity forwards a SIP request to an untrusted | |||
| entity, however, the P-Asserted-Identity header must first be | entity, however, the P-Asserted-Identity header must first be | |||
| removed; most sorts of end user devices are outside trust domains. | removed; most sorts of end user devices are outside trust domains. | |||
| Sending a P-Asserted-Identity request to an untrusted entity could | Sending a P-Asserted-Identity request to an untrusted entity could | |||
| leak potentially private information, such as the network-asserted | leak potentially private information, such as the network-asserted | |||
| calling party number in a case where a caller has requested | calling party number in a case where a caller has requested | |||
| presentation restriction. This concept of a trust domain is modeled | presentation restriction. This concept of a trust domain is modeled | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 30 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 30 ¶ | |||
| more than by security standards, and thus the level of assurance of P | more than by security standards, and thus the level of assurance of P | |||
| -Asserted-Identity is only as good as the least trustworthy member of | -Asserted-Identity is only as good as the least trustworthy member of | |||
| a trust domain. Since the contents of P-Asserted-Identity are not | a trust domain. Since the contents of P-Asserted-Identity are not | |||
| intended for consumption by end users, end users must trust that | intended for consumption by end users, end users must trust that | |||
| their service provider participates in an appropriate trust domain, | their service provider participates in an appropriate trust domain, | |||
| as there will be no direct evidence of the trust domain in SIP | as there will be no direct evidence of the trust domain in SIP | |||
| signaling that end user devices receive. Since the mechanism is so | signaling that end user devices receive. Since the mechanism is so | |||
| closely modeled on the traditional telephone network, it is unlikely | closely modeled on the traditional telephone network, it is unlikely | |||
| to provide a higher level of security than that. | to provide a higher level of security than that. | |||
| Since [5] was written, the whole notion of P- headers intended for | Since [4] was written, the whole notion of P- headers intended for | |||
| use in private SIP domains has also been deprecated (see [10], | use in private SIP domains has also been deprecated (see [9], largely | |||
| largely because of overwhelming evidence that these headers were | because of overwhelming evidence that these headers were being used | |||
| being used outside of private contexts and leaking into the public | outside of private contexts and leaking into the public Internet. It | |||
| Internet. It is unclear how many deployments that make use of P | is unclear how many deployments that make use of P-Asserted-Identity | |||
| -Asserted-Identity in fact conform with the Spec-T requirements of | in fact conform with the Spec-T requirements of RFC3324. | |||
| RFC3324. | ||||
| P-Asserted-Identity also complicates the question of which URI should | P-Asserted-Identity also complicates the question of which URI should | |||
| be presented to a user when a call is received. Per RFC3261, SIP | be presented to a user when a call is received. Per RFC3261, SIP | |||
| user agents would render the contents of the From header field to a | user agents would render the contents of the From header field to a | |||
| user when receiving an INVITE request, but what if the P-Asserted- | user when receiving an INVITE request, but what if the P-Asserted- | |||
| Identity contains a more trustworthy URI, and presentation is not | Identity contains a more trustworthy URI, and presentation is not | |||
| restricted? Subsequent proposals have suggested additional header | restricted? Subsequent proposals have suggested additional header | |||
| fields to carry different forms of identity related to the caller, | fields to carry different forms of identity related to the caller, | |||
| including billing identities. As the calling identities in a SIP | including billing identities. As the calling identities in a SIP | |||
| request proliferate, the question of how to select one to render to | request proliferate, the question of how to select one to render to | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 24 ¶ | |||
| provision to identify the assignee of a telephone number. While it | provision to identify the assignee of a telephone number. While it | |||
| could be the case that the domain name portion of a SIP URI signifies | could be the case that the domain name portion of a SIP URI signifies | |||
| a carrier (like "att.com") to whom numbers are assigned, the SIP | a carrier (like "att.com") to whom numbers are assigned, the SIP | |||
| Identity mechanism provides no assurance that a number is assigned to | Identity mechanism provides no assurance that a number is assigned to | |||
| any carrier. For a tel URI, moreover, it is unclear in [1] what | any carrier. For a tel URI, moreover, it is unclear in [1] what | |||
| entity should hold a corresponding certificate. A caller may not | entity should hold a corresponding certificate. A caller may not | |||
| want to reveal the identity of its service provider to the callee, | want to reveal the identity of its service provider to the callee, | |||
| and may thus prefer tel URIs in the From header field. | and may thus prefer tel URIs in the From header field. | |||
| This lack of authority gives rise to a whole class of SIP identity | This lack of authority gives rise to a whole class of SIP identity | |||
| problems when dealing with telephone numbers, as is explored in [13]. | problems when dealing with telephone numbers, as is explored in [12]. | |||
| That document shows how the Identity header of a SIP request | That document shows how the Identity header of a SIP request | |||
| targeting a telephone number (embedded in a SIP URI) could be dropped | targeting a telephone number (embedded in a SIP URI) could be dropped | |||
| by an intermediate domain, which then modifies and resigns the | by an intermediate domain, which then modifies and resigns the | |||
| request, all without alerting the verification service: the | request, all without alerting the verification service: the | |||
| verification service has no way of knowing which original domain | verification service has no way of knowing which original domain | |||
| signed the request. Provided that the local authentication service | signed the request. Provided that the local authentication service | |||
| is complicit, an originator can claim virtually any telephone number, | is complicit, an originator can claim virtually any telephone number, | |||
| impersonating any chosen Caller ID from the perspective of the | impersonating any chosen Caller ID from the perspective of the | |||
| verifier. Both of these attacks are rooted in the inability of the | verifier. Both of these attacks are rooted in the inability of the | |||
| verification service to ascertain a specific certificate that is | verification service to ascertain a specific certificate that is | |||
| authoritative for a telephone number. | authoritative for a telephone number. | |||
| As deployed, SIP is moreover highly mediated, and mediated in ways | As deployed, SIP is moreover highly mediated, and mediated in ways | |||
| that [2] did not anticipate. As request routing commonly depends on | that [2] did not anticipate. As request routing commonly depends on | |||
| policies dissimilar to [16], requests transit multiple intermediate | policies dissimilar to [14], requests transit multiple intermediate | |||
| domains to reach a destination; some forms of intermediaries in those | domains to reach a destination; some forms of intermediaries in those | |||
| domains may effectively re-initiate the session. | domains may effectively re-initiate the session. | |||
| One of the main reasons that SIP deployments mimic the PSTN | One of the main reasons that SIP deployments mimic the PSTN | |||
| architecture is because the requirement for interconnection with the | architecture is because the requirement for interconnection with the | |||
| PSTN remains paramount: a call may originate in SIP and terminate on | PSTN remains paramount: a call may originate in SIP and terminate on | |||
| the PSTN, or vice versa; and worse still, a PSTN-to-PSTN call may | the PSTN, or vice versa; and worse still, a PSTN-to-PSTN call may | |||
| transit a SIP network in the middle, or vice versa. This necessarily | transit a SIP network in the middle, or vice versa. This necessarily | |||
| reduces SIP's feature set to the least common dominator of the | reduces SIP's feature set to the least common dominator of the | |||
| telephone network, and mandates support for telephone numbers as a | telephone network, and mandates support for telephone numbers as a | |||
| skipping to change at page 20, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 20, line 12 ¶ | |||
| American Numbering Plan could have applicability to other country | American Numbering Plan could have applicability to other country | |||
| codes. | codes. | |||
| 6.3. Public Key Infrastructure Developments | 6.3. Public Key Infrastructure Developments | |||
| Also, there have been a number of recent high-profile compromises of | Also, there have been a number of recent high-profile compromises of | |||
| web certificate authorities. The presence of numerous (in some | web certificate authorities. The presence of numerous (in some | |||
| cases, of hundreds) of trusted certificate authorities in modern web | cases, of hundreds) of trusted certificate authorities in modern web | |||
| browsers has become a significant security liability. As [1] relied | browsers has become a significant security liability. As [1] relied | |||
| on web certificate authorities, this too provides new lessons for any | on web certificate authorities, this too provides new lessons for any | |||
| work on revising [1]: namely, that innovations like DANE [6] that | work on revising [1]: namely, that innovations like DANE [5] that | |||
| designate a specific certificate preferred by the owner of a DNS name | designate a specific certificate preferred by the owner of a DNS name | |||
| could greatly improve the security of a SIP identity mechanism; and | could greatly improve the security of a SIP identity mechanism; and | |||
| moreover, that when architecting new certificate authorities for | moreover, that when architecting new certificate authorities for | |||
| telephone numbers, we should be wary of excessive pluralism. While a | telephone numbers, we should be wary of excessive pluralism. While a | |||
| chain of delegation with a progressively narrowing scope of authority | chain of delegation with a progressively narrowing scope of authority | |||
| (e.g., from a regulatory entity to a carrier to a reseller to an end | (e.g., from a regulatory entity to a carrier to a reseller to an end | |||
| user) is needed to reflect operational practices, there is no need to | user) is needed to reflect operational practices, there is no need to | |||
| have multiple roots, or peer entities that both claim authority for | have multiple roots, or peer entities that both claim authority for | |||
| the same telephone number or number range. | the same telephone number or number range. | |||
| skipping to change at page 23, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 16 ¶ | |||
| [1] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for | [1] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for | |||
| Authenticated Identity Management in the Session | Authenticated Identity Management in the Session | |||
| Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006. | Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006. | |||
| [2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, | [2] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, | |||
| A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. | A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. | |||
| Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, | Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, | |||
| June 2002. | June 2002. | |||
| [3] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, | [3] Watson, M., "Short Term Requirements for Network Asserted | |||
| A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. | ||||
| Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, | ||||
| June 2002. | ||||
| [4] Watson, M., "Short Term Requirements for Network Asserted | ||||
| Identity", RFC 3324, November 2002. | Identity", RFC 3324, November 2002. | |||
| [5] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private | [4] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private | |||
| Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for | Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for | |||
| Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, | Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325, | |||
| November 2002. | November 2002. | |||
| [6] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication | [5] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication | |||
| of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) | of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) | |||
| Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, August 2012. | Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, August 2012. | |||
| [7] Elwell, J., "Connected Identity in the Session Initiation | [6] Elwell, J., "Connected Identity in the Session Initiation | |||
| Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4916, June 2007. | Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4916, June 2007. | |||
| [8] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC | [7] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC | |||
| 3966, December 2004. | 3966, December 2004. | |||
| [9] Rosenberg, J. and C. Jennings, "The Session Initiation | [8] Rosenberg, J. and C. Jennings, "The Session Initiation | |||
| Protocol (SIP) and Spam", RFC 5039, January 2008. | Protocol (SIP) and Spam", RFC 5039, January 2008. | |||
| [10] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process | [9] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process | |||
| for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real- | for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real- | |||
| time Applications and Infrastructure Area", BCP 67, RFC | time Applications and Infrastructure Area", BCP 67, RFC | |||
| 5727, March 2010. | 5727, March 2010. | |||
| [11] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Peterson, J., and B. Aboba, | [10] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Peterson, J., and B. Aboba, | |||
| "Secure Call Origin Identification", draft-cooper-iab- | "Secure Call Origin Identification", draft-cooper-iab- | |||
| secure-origin-00 (work in progress), November 2012. | secure-origin-00 (work in progress), November 2012. | |||
| [12] Peterson, J., "Retargeting and Security in SIP: A | [11] Peterson, J., "Retargeting and Security in SIP: A | |||
| Framework and Requirements", draft-peterson-sipping- | Framework and Requirements", draft-peterson-sipping- | |||
| retarget-00 (work in progress), February 2005. | retarget-00 (work in progress), February 2005. | |||
| [13] Rosenberg, J., "Concerns around the Applicability of RFC | [12] Rosenberg, J., "Concerns around the Applicability of RFC | |||
| 4474", draft-rosenberg-sip-rfc4474-concerns-00 (work in | 4474", draft-rosenberg-sip-rfc4474-concerns-00 (work in | |||
| progress), February 2008. | progress), February 2008. | |||
| [14] Kaplan, H. and V. Pascual, "Loop Detection Mechanisms for | [13] Barnes, M., Jennings, C., Rosenberg, J., and M. Petit- | |||
| Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Back-to- Back User | ||||
| Agents (B2BUAs)", draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-03 | ||||
| (work in progress), December 2013. | ||||
| [15] Barnes, M., Jennings, C., Rosenberg, J., and M. Petit- | ||||
| Huguenin, "Verification Involving PSTN Reachability: | Huguenin, "Verification Involving PSTN Reachability: | |||
| Requirements and Architecture Overview", draft-jennings- | Requirements and Architecture Overview", draft-jennings- | |||
| vipr-overview-06 (work in progress), December 2013. | vipr-overview-06 (work in progress), December 2013. | |||
| [16] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation | [14] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation | |||
| Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June | Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June | |||
| 2002. | 2002. | |||
| [17] Krebs, B., "DHS Warns of 'TDoS' Extortion Attacks on | [15] Krebs, B., "DHS Warns of 'TDoS' Extortion Attacks on | |||
| Public Emergency Networks", URL: | Public Emergency Networks", URL: | |||
| http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/04/dhs-warns-of-tdos- | http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/04/dhs-warns-of-tdos- | |||
| extortion-attacks-on-public-emergency-networks/, Apr 2013. | extortion-attacks-on-public-emergency-networks/, Apr 2013. | |||
| [18] FCC, , "Robocalls", URL: | [16] FCC, , "Robocalls", URL: | |||
| http://www.fcc.gov/guides/robocalls, Apr 2013. | http://www.fcc.gov/guides/robocalls, Apr 2013. | |||
| [19] FTC, , "FTC Robocall Challenge", URL: | [17] FTC, , "FTC Robocall Challenge", URL: | |||
| http://robocall.challenge.gov/, Apr 2013. | http://robocall.challenge.gov/, Apr 2013. | |||
| [20] Wikipedia, , "News International phone hacking scandal", | [18] Wikipedia, , "News International phone hacking scandal", | |||
| URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ | URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ | |||
| News_International_phone_hacking_scandal, Apr 2013. | News_International_phone_hacking_scandal, Apr 2013. | |||
| [21] Wikipedia, , "Don't Make the Call: The New Phenomenon of | [19] Wikipedia, , "Don't Make the Call: The New Phenomenon of | |||
| 'Swatting'", URL: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/ | 'Swatting'", URL: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/ | |||
| february/swatting020408, Feb 2008. | february/swatting020408, Feb 2008. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Jon Peterson | Jon Peterson | |||
| Neustar, Inc. | Neustar, Inc. | |||
| 1800 Sutter St Suite 570 | 1800 Sutter St Suite 570 | |||
| Concord, CA 94520 | Concord, CA 94520 | |||
| US | US | |||
| Email: jon.peterson@neustar.biz | Email: jon.peterson@neustar.biz | |||
| Henning Schulzrinne | Henning Schulzrinne | |||
| Columbia University | Columbia University | |||
| Department of Computer Science | Department of Computer Science | |||
| 450 Computer Science Building | 450 Computer Science Building | |||
| New York, NY 10027 | New York, NY 10027 | |||
| US | US | |||
| Phone: +1 212 939 7004 | Phone: +1 212 939 7004 | |||
| Email: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu | Email: hgs@cs.columbia.edu | |||
| URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu | URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu | |||
| Hannes Tschofenig | Hannes Tschofenig | |||
| Nokia Siemens Networks | Nokia Siemens Networks | |||
| Linnoitustie 6 | Linnoitustie 6 | |||
| Espoo 02600 | Espoo 02600 | |||
| Finland | Finland | |||
| Phone: +358 (50) 4871445 | Phone: +358 (50) 4871445 | |||
| Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net | Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net | |||
| End of changes. 41 change blocks. | ||||
| 65 lines changed or deleted | 54 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||