- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:53:04 +0200
- To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I've tried to draft a security considerations section for the media capture and streams document. I've been working from the idea that a security considerations section should not specify any new technology or features, but give an overview of the security issues that are involved in using the functionality, and mentioning the features that are particularly important in mitigating the risks involved. Here's my proposed text. Let's do a round of discussion on the list before I enter this into the buganizer and from there into the document. Security considerations ------------------------------- This section is non-normative. This document extends the Web platform with the ability to set up real time, direct communication between browsers and other devices, including other browsers. While a web application already before WebRTC will know the IP address to which the application is delivered, setting up communications exposes additional information about the browser’s network context to the web application, including the set of IP addresses available to the browser for WebRTC use. Some of this information has to be passed to the corresponding party to enable the establishment of a communication session. Revealing IP addresses can leak location and means of connection; this can be sensitive. Some mitigation is possible by using relays (for instance TURN servers) rather than direct connections between participants. Since the browser is an active platform executing in a trusted network environment (inside the firewall), it is important to limit the damage that the browser can do to other units on the local network, and it is important to protect data from interception, manipulation and modification by untrusted participants. Mitigations include: - Always requesting permission to communicate using ICE. This ensures that the browser can only send to partners who you have shared credentials with. - Requesting ongoing permission using ICE continued consent. This enables a receiver to withdraw consent to receive. - Requiring encryption of data, with strong per-session keying (DTLS-SRTP). - Requiring the use of congestion control. This ensures that WebRTC cannot be used to flood the network. These measures are specified in the relevant IETF documents. The fact of communication cannot be disguised, so must be regarded as public information.
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 11:53:31 UTC