W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2018

Re: Ban ICE-LITE? webRTC and Content Security Policy connect-src

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:40:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFaxO0XUPn-9=gjeL-1g+ynGpKfvUFAK_z5wtctGZk12w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, T H Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Sorry that's IP and port.

So maybe domain-name-only remote ICE candidates with whitelisted domains
might work.   But I think that would mean ICE would then not work p2p, only

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 8:22 AM Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:

> As I pointed out on the other thread (why do we have 3 now?), I think any
> packets being sent by the browser where the JS can control the destination
> port is sufficient to convey information.
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 5:48 AM Sergio Garcia Murillo <
> sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Disclaimer: I did my ICE lite implementation 5 years ago, so I maybe
>> completely wrong.
>> We are assuming that ICE lite is less secure that full ICE because in
>> full ICE you need to know the remote ufrag in order to create the request,
>> right?
>> But that information will be available at the full ice endpoint as soon
>> as the first incoming stun binding request is received. So wouldn't this
>> mean that both full ice and ice lite are equally insecure?
>> As Iñaki is pointing out what would be needed is to use the remote pwd
>> (which is not exchanged in stun request) in order to authenticate also the
>> remote peer. This is something I have never understood about ICE, why it
>> requires both ufrags to form the username, but only uses the local password
>> for fingerprinting (I assume is to speed up setup up times not having to
>> wait for remote peer info before starting ICE). Using local_pwd:remote_pwd
>> for fingerprinting would solve this issue altogether for both ice and
>> ice-lite.
>> Best regards
>> Sergio
>> On 12/01/2018 14:19, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> To me, it sounds like we should ban ICE-LITE altogether.
>> We've got a lot of security story resting on the idea that the ICE
>> request/response requires both ends to have seen the SDP.
>> If that isn't true for ICE-LITE, then ICE-LITE is not safe for WebRTC.
>> On 01/12/2018 01:20 PM, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
>> Missed it, that will prevent it, right.
>> On 12/01/2018 13:11, T H Panton wrote:
>> That's covered in my proposal:
>> add a CSP turn-servers whitelist (to prevent leakage via the credentials)
Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 16:40:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 12 January 2018 16:40:49 UTC