[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework

Network Working Group                                           P. Jones
Internet-Draft                                                 D. Benham
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Cisco
Expires: September 22, 2016                               March 21, 2016


     A Solution Framework for Private Media in Privacy Enhanced RTP
                              Conferencing
              draft-jones-perc-private-media-framework-02

Abstract

   This document describes a solution framework for ensuring that media
   confidentiality and integrity are maintained end-to-end within the
   context of a switched conferencing environment where media
   distribution devices are not trusted with the end-to-end media
   encryption keys.  The solution aims to build upon existing security
   mechanisms defined for the real-time transport protocol (RTP).

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  PERC Entities and Trust Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Untrusted Entities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  MDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  Call Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Trusted Entities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  Endpoint  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.2.  KMF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Framework for PERC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  End-to-End and Hop-by-Hop Authenticated Encryption  . . .   7
     4.2.  E2E Key Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  E2E Keys and Endpoint Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4.  HBH Keys and Hop Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.5.  Key Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.5.1.  Initial Key Exchange and KMF  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.5.2.  Key Exchange during a Conference  . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Entity Trust  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  Identity Assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Certificate Fingerprints in Session Signaling . . . . . .  12
   6.  Attacks on Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing  . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  Third Party Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  MDD Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.2.1.  Denial of service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.2.2.  Replay Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.2.3.  Delayed Playout Attack  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.2.4.  Splicing Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  To-Do List  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     7.1.  What is Needed to Realize this Framework  . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   Switched conferencing is an increasingly popular model for multimedia
   conferences with multiple participants using a combination of audio,
   video, text, and other media types.  With this model, real-time media
   flows from conference participants are not mixed, transcoded,



Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   transrated, recomposed, or otherwise manipulated by a media
   distribution device (MDD), as might be the case with a traditional
   media server or multipoint control unit (MCU).  Instead, media flows
   transmitted by conference participants are simply forwarded by the
   MDD to each of the other participants, often forwarding only a subset
   of flows based on voice activity detection or other criteria.  In
   some instances, the switching MDDs may make limited modifications to
   RTP [RFC3550] headers, for example, but the actual media content
   (e.g., voice or video data) is unaltered.

   An advantage of switched conferencing is that MDDs can be deployed on
   general-purpose computing hardware.  This, in turn, means that it is
   possible to deploy switching MDDs in virtualized environments,
   including private and public clouds.  Deploying conference resources
   in a cloud environment might introduce a higher security risk.
   Whereas traditional conference resources were usually deployed in
   private networks that were protected, cloud-based conference
   resources might be viewed as less secure since they are not always
   physically controlled by those who use the hardware.  Additionally,
   there are usually several ports open to the public in cloud
   deployments, such as for remote administration, and so on.

   This document defines a solution framework wherein privacy is ensured
   by making it impossible for an MDD to gain access to keys needed to
   decrypt or authenticate the actual media content sent between
   conference participants.  At the same time, the framework allows for
   the switching MDD to modify certain RTP headers; add, remove,
   encrypt, or decrypt RTP header extensions; and encrypt and decrypt
   RTCP packets.  The framework also prevents replay attacks by
   authenticating each packet transmitted between a given participant
   and the switching MDD by using a key that is independent from the
   media encryption and authentication key(s) and is unique to the
   participating endpoint and the switching MDD.

   A goal of this document is to define a framework for enhanced privacy
   in RTP-based conferencing environments while utilizing existing
   security procedures defined for RTP with minimal enhancements.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when they
   appear in ALL CAPS.  These words may also appear in this document in
   lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings.

   Additionally, this solution framework uses the following conventions,
   terms and acronyms:



Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   E2E (End-to-End): Communications from one endpoint through one or
   more MDDs to the endpoint at the other end.

   HBH (Hop-by-Hop): Communications between an endpoint and an MDD or
   between MDDs.

   Endpoint: An RTP flow terminating entity that has possession of E2E
   media encryption keys and terminates end-to-end (E2E) encryption.
   This may include embedded user conferencing equipment or browsers on
   computers, media gateways, MCUs, media recording device and more that
   are in the trusted domain for a given deployment.

   MDD (Media Distribution Device): An RTP middlebox that is not allowed
   to to have access to E2E encryption keys.  It may operate according
   to any of the RTP topologies [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update]
   per the constraints defined by the PERC system, which includes, but
   not limited to, having no access to RTP media unencrypted and having
   limits on what RTP header field it can alter.

   KMF (Key Management Function): An entity that is a logical function
   which passes keying material and related information to endpoints and
   MDDs that is appropriate for each.  The KMF might be co-resident with
   another entity trusted with E2E keying material.

   Conference: Two or more participants communicating via trusted
   endpoints to exchange RTP flows through one or more MDDs.

   Third Party: Any entity that is not an Endpoint, MDD, KMF or Call
   Processing entity as described in this document.

3.  PERC Entities and Trust Model

   The following figure depicts the trust relationships, direct or
   indirect, between entities described in the subsequent sub-sections.
   Note that these entities may be co-located or further divided into
   multiple, separate physical devices.

   Please note that some entities classified as untrusted in the simple,
   general deployment scenario used most commonly in this document might
   be considered trusted in other deployments.  This document does not
   preclude such scenarios, but will keep the definitions and examples
   focused by only using the the simple, most general deployment
   scenario.








Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


                                  |
              +----------+        |        +-----------------+
              | Endpoint |        |        | Call Processing |
              +----------+        |        +-----------------+
                                  |
                                  |
           +----------------+     |       +--------------------+
           | Key Management |     |       | Media Distribution |
           |    Function    |     |       |       Device       |
           +----------------+     |       +--------------------+
                                  |
                Trusted           |             Untrusted
                Entities          |             Entities
                                  |


             Figure 1: Trusted and Untrusted Entities in PERC

3.1.  Untrusted Entities

   The architecture described in this framework document enables
   conferencing infrastructure to be hosted in domains, such as in a
   cloud conferencing provider's facilities, where the trustworthiness
   is below the level needed to assume the privacy of participant's
   media will not be compromised.  The conferencing infrastructure in
   such a domain is still trusted with reliably connecting the
   participants together in a conference, but not trusted with keying
   material needed to decrypt any of the participant's media.  Entities
   in such lower trustworthiness domains will simply be referred to as
   untrusted entities from this point forward.  This does not mean that
   they are completely untrusted as they may be trusted with most non-
   media related aspects of hosting a conference.

3.1.1.  MDD

   An MDD forwards RTP flows between endpoints in the conference while
   performing per-hop authentication of each RTP packet.  The MDD may
   need access to one or more RTP headers or header extensions,
   potentially adding or modifying a certain subset.  The MDD will also
   relay secured messaging between the endpoints and the key management
   function and will acquire per-hop key information from the KMF.  The
   actual media content MUST NOT not be decryptable by an MDD, so it is
   untrusted to have access to the E2E media encryption keys, which this
   framework's key exchange mechanisms will prevent.

   An endpoint's ability to join a conference hosted by an MDD MUST NOT
   alone be interpreted as being authorized to have access to the E2E




Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   media encryption keys, as the MDD does not have the ability to
   determine whether an endpoint is authorized.

   An MDD MUST perform its role in properly forwarding media packets
   while taking measures to mitigate the adverse effects of denial of
   service attacks (refer to Section Section 6), etc, to a level equal
   to or better than traditional conferencing (i.e. pre-PERC)
   deployments.

   An MDD or associated conferencing infrastructure may also initiate or
   terminate various conference control related messaging, which is
   outside the scope of this framework document.

3.1.2.  Call Processing

   The call processing function is untrusted in the simple, general
   deployment scenario.  When a physical subset of the call processing
   function resides in facilities outside the trusted domain, it should
   not be trusted to have access to E2E key information.

   The call processing function may include the processing of call
   signaling messages, as well as the signing of those messages.  It may
   also authenticate the endpoints for the purpose of call signaling and
   subsequently joining of a conference hosted through one or more MDDs.
   Call processing may optionally ensure the privacy of call signaling
   messages between itself, the endpoint, and other entities.

   In any deployment scenario where the call processing function is
   considered trusted, the call processing function MUST ensure the
   integrity of received messages before forwarding to other entities.

3.2.  Trusted Entities

   From the PERC model system perspective, entities considered trusted
   (refer to Figure 1) can be in possession of the E2E media encryption
   key(s) for one or more conferences.

3.2.1.  Endpoint

   An endpoint is considered trusted and will have access to E2E key
   information.  While it is possible for an endpoint to be compromised,
   subsequently performing in undesired ways, defining endpoint
   resistance to compromise is outside the scope of this document.
   Endpoints will take measures to mitigate the adverse effects of
   denial of service attacks (refer to Section 6) from other entities,
   including from other endpoints, to a level equal to or better than
   traditional conference (i.e., pre-PERC) deployments.




Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


3.2.2.  KMF

   The KMF, which may be collocated with an endpoint or exist
   standalone, is responsible for providing key information to endpoints
   for both end-to-end and hop-by-hop security and for providing key
   information to MDDs for the hop-by-hop security.

   Interaction between the KMF and the call processing function may be
   necessary to for proper conference-to-endpoint mappings, which may or
   may not be satisfied by getting information directly from the
   endpoints or via some other means.  [TO DO: Revisit this text after
   design choice(s) are made between the alternatives.]

   Obviously, the KMF needs to be closely managed to prevent
   exploitation by an adversary, as any kind of security compromise of
   the KMF puts the security of the conference at risk.

4.  Framework for PERC

   The purpose for this framework is to define a means through which
   media privacy can be ensured when communicating within a conferencing
   environment consisting of one or more MDDs that only switch, hence
   not terminate, media.  It does not otherwise attempt to hide the fact
   that a conference between endpoints is taking place.

   This framework reuses several specified RTP security technologies,
   including SRTP [RFC3711], PERC EKT [I-D.jennings-perc-srtp-ekt-diet],
   and DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764].

4.1.  End-to-End and Hop-by-Hop Authenticated Encryption

   This solution framework focuses on the end-to-end privacy and
   integrity of the participant's media by limiting access to end-to-end
   key information to trusted entities.  However, this framework does
   give an MDD access to RTP headers and all or most header extensions,
   as well as the ability to modify a certain subset of those headers
   and to add header extensions.  Packets received by an MDD or an
   endpoint are authenticated hop-by-hop.

   To enable all of the above, this framework defines the use of two
   security contexts and two associated encryption keys; an "inner" key
   (E2E Key(i); i={a given endpoint}) for authenticated encryption of
   RTP media between endpoints and an "outer" key (HBH Key(j); j={a
   given hop}) for the hop between an endpoint and an MDD or between
   MDDs.  Reference the following figure.






Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   +--------+    HBH      +-----+   HBH   +-----+    HBH      +--------+
   |        |=============|     |=========|     |=============|        |
   |Endpoint|-E2E Key(A)->| MDD |-------->| MDD |------------>|Endpoint|
   |    A   |<------------|  X  |<--------|  Y  |<-E2E Key(B)-|    B   |
   |        |=============|     |=========|     |=============|        |
   +--------+   Key(AX)   +-----+ Key(XY) +-----+   Key(YB)   +--------+

            E2E and HBH Keys Used for Authenticated Encryption

   The PERC Double draft specification [I-D.jennings-perc-double] uses
   standard SRTP keying material and recommended cryptographic
   transform(s) to first form the inner, end-to-end SRTP cryptographic
   context.  That end-to-end SRTP cryptographic context MAY be used to
   encrypt some RTP header extensions along with RTP media content.  The
   output of this is treated like an RTP packet and encrypted again
   using the outer hop-by-hop cryptographic context.  The endpoint
   executes the entire Double operation while the MDD just performs the
   outer, hop-by-hop operation.

   RTCP can only be encrypted hop-by-hop, not end-to-end.  This
   framework introduces no additional step for RTCP authenticated
   encryption, so the procedures needed are specified in [RFC3711] and
   use the same outer, hop-by-hop cryptographic context chosen in the
   Double operation described above.

4.2.  E2E Key Confidentiality

   To ensure the confidentiality of E2E keys shared between endpoints,
   endpoints will make use of a common Key Encryption Key (KEK) that is
   known only by the trusted entities in a conference.  That KEK,
   defined in the PERC EKT [I-D.jennings-perc-srtp-ekt-diet] as the EKT
   Key, will be used to subsequently encrypt SRTP master keys used for
   E2E authenticated encryption (E2E Key(i); i={a given endpoint}) of
   media sent by a given endpoint.

     +---------------------+------------+-------+-------+------------+
     | Key     /    Entity | Endpoint A | MDD X | MDD Y | Endpoint B |
     +---------------------+------------+---------------+------------+
     | KEK                 |    Yes     |  No   |  No   |     Yes    |
     +---------------------+------------+---------------+------------+
     | E2E Key (i)         |    Yes     |  No   |  No   |     Yes    |
     +---------------------+------------+---------------+------------+
     | HBH Key (A<=>MDD X) |    Yes     |  Yes  |  No   |     No     |
     +---------------------+------------+---------------+------------+
     | HBH Key (B<=>MDD Y) |    No      |  No   |  Yes  |     Yes    |
     +---------------------+------------+---------------+------------+

                         Figure 2: Keys per Entity



Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


4.3.  E2E Keys and Endpoint Operations

   Any given RTP media flow can be identified by its SSRC, and endpoints
   might send more than one at a time and change the mix of media flows
   transmitted during the life of a conference.

   Thus, endpoints MUST maintain a list of SSRCs from received RTP flows
   and each SSRC's associated E2E Key(i) information.  Following a
   change of the KEK (i.e., EKT Key), prior E2E Key(i) information
   SHOULD be retained just long enough to ensure that late-arriving or
   out-of-order packets can be successfully decrypted and rendered.
   [NOTE: Perhaps a separate best practices document can recommend
   durations after some real world testing?]  The endpoint SHOULD
   discard the E2E Key(i) and KEK information when it leaves the
   conference.

   If there is a need to encrypt one or more RTP header extensions end-
   to-end, an encryption key is derived from the end-to-end SRTP master
   key to encrypt header extensions as per [RFC6904].  The MDD will not
   be able use the information contained in those header extensions with
   E2E encryption.  [TO DO: Add a list to this doc of RTP Header
   Extensions that are off limits to - the MUST NOTs - be E2E
   encrypted.]

4.4.  HBH Keys and Hop Operations

   To ensure the integrity of transmitted media packets, this framework
   requires that every packet be authenticated hop-by-hop (HBH) between
   an endpoint and an MDD, as well between MDDs.  The authentication key
   used for hop-by-hop authentication is derived from an SRTP master key
   shared only on the respective hop (HBH Key(j); j={a given hop}).
   Each HBH Key(j) is distinct per hop and no two hops ever
   intentionally use the same SRTP master key.

   Using hop-by-hop authentication gives the MDD the ability to change
   certain RTP header values.  Which values the MDD can change in the
   RTP header are defined in [I-D.jennings-perc-double].  RTCP can only
   be encrtpted, giving the MDD the flexibility to forward RTCP content
   unchanged, transmit compound RTCP packets or to initiate RTCP packets
   for reporting statistics or conveying other information.  Performing
   hop-by-hop authentication for all RTP and RTCP packets also helps
   provide replay protection (see Section 6).

   If there is a need to encrypt one or more RTP header extensions hop-
   by-hop, an encryption key is derived from the hop-by-hop SRTP master
   key to encrypt header extensions as per [RFC6904].  This will still
   give the switching MDD visibility into header extensions, such as the
   one used to determine audio level [RFC6464] of conference



Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   participants.  Note that when RTP header extensions are encrypted,
   all hops - in the untrusted domain at least - will need to decrypt
   and re-encrypt these encrypted header extensions.

4.5.  Key Exchange

   To facilitate key exchange required to establish or generate an E2E
   key and a HBH key for an endpoint and the same HBH key for the MDD,
   this framework utilizes a DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] association between an
   endpoint and the KMF.  To establish this association, an endpoint
   will send DTLS-SRTP messages to the MDD which will then forward them
   to the MDD as defined in DTLS Tunnel for PERC
   [I-D.jones-perc-dtls-tunnel].  The KEK (i.e., EKT Key) is also
   conveyed by the KMF over the DTLS association to endpoints via
   procedures defined in PERC EKT [I-D.jennings-perc-srtp-ekt-diet].

   MDDs use DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] directly with a peer MDD to establish
   HBH keys for transmitting RTP and RTCP packets that peer MDD.  The
   KMF does not facilitate establishing HBH keys for use between MDDs.

4.5.1.  Initial Key Exchange and KMF

   The procedures defined in DTLS Tunnel for PERC
   [I-D.jones-perc-dtls-tunnel] establish one or more DTLS tunnels
   between the MDD and KMF, making it is possible for the MDD to
   facilitate the establishment of a secure DTLS association between
   each endpoint and the KMF as shown the following figure.  The DTLS
   association between endpoints and the KMF will enable each endpoint
   to receive E2E key information, Key Encryption Key (KEK) information
   (i.e., EKT Key), and HBH key information.  At the same time, the KMF
   can securely provide the HBH key information to the MDD.  The key
   information summarized here may include the SRTP master key, SRTP
   master salt, and the negotiated cryptographic transform.


















Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


                       KEK info +---------+ HBH Key info
                   to endpoints |   KMF   | to endpoints & MDD
                                +---------+
                                  | ^ ^ |
                                  | | | |-DTLS Tunnel
                                  | | | |
          +-----------+         +---------+         +-----------+
          | Endpoint  |  DTLS   |   MDD   |  DTLS   | Endpoint  |
          |    KEK    |<--------|         |-------->|    KEK    |
          | HBH Key(j)| to KMF  | HBH Keys| to KMF  | HBH Key(j)|
          +-----------+         +---------+         +-----------+


           Figure 3: Exchanging Key Information Between Entities

   Endpoints will establish a DTLS-SRTP association over the RTP
   session's media ports for the purposes of key information exchange
   with the KMF.  The MDD will not terminate the DTLS signaling, but
   will instead forward DTLS packets received from an endpoint on to the
   KMF (and vice versa) via a tunnel established between MDD and the
   KMF.  This tunnel used to encapsulate the DTLS-SRTP signaling between
   the KMF and endpoints will also be used to convey HBH key information
   from the KMF to the MDD, so no additional protocol or interface is
   required.

4.5.2.  Key Exchange during a Conference

   Following the initial key information exchange with the KMF,
   endpoints will be able to encrypt media end-to-end with their E2E
   Key(i), sending that E2E Key(i) to other endpoints encrypted with
   KEK, and will be able to encrypt and authenticate RTP packets using
   local HBH Key(j).  The procedures defined do not allow the MDD to
   gain access to the KEK information, preventing it from gaining access
   to any endpoint's E2E key and subsequently decrypting media.

   The KEK (i.e., EKT Key) may need to change from time-to-time during
   the life of a conference, such as when a new participant joins or
   leaves a conference.  Dictating if, when or how often a conference is
   to be re-keyed is outside the scope of this document, but this
   framework does accommodate re-keying during the life of a conference.

   When a KMF decides to rekey a conference, it transmits a specific
   message defined in PERC EKT [I-D.jennings-perc-srtp-ekt-diet] to each
   of the conference participants.  The endpoint MUST create a new SRTP
   master key and prepare to send that key inside a Full EKT Field using
   the new EKT Key. Since it may take some time for all of the endpoints
   in conference to finish re-keying, senders SHOULD delay a short
   period of time before sending media encrypted with the new master



Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   key, but it MUST be prepared to make use of the information from a
   new inbound EKT Key immediately.  [TO DO: Either need to pick a short
   delay period for endpoints to use per above, defer to a future best
   practices document or consider having the KMF manage the delay period
   given it knows the size of a given conference.]

5.  Entity Trust

   It is important to this solution framework that the entities can
   trust and validate the authenticity of other entities, especially the
   KMF and endpoints.  The details of this are outside the scope of
   specification but a few possibilities are discussed in the following
   sections.  The key requirements is that endpoints can verify they are
   connected to the correct KMF for the conference and the KMF can
   verify the endpoints are the correct endpoints for the conference.

   Two possible approaches to solve this are Identity Assertions and
   Certificate Fingerprints.

5.1.  Identity Assertions

   WebRTC (EDIT: add reference) Identity assertion can be used to bind
   the identity of the user of the endpoint to the fingerprint of the
   DTLS-SRTP certificate used for the call.  This certificate is unique
   for a given call and a conference.  This allows the KMF to ensure
   that only authorized users participate in the conference.  Similarly
   the KMF can create a WeBRTC Identity assertion bound the fingerprint
   of the unique certificate used by the KMF for this conference so that
   the endpoint can validate it is talking to the correct KMF.

5.2.  Certificate Fingerprints in Session Signaling

   Entities managing session signaling are generally assumed to be
   untrusted in the PERC framework.  However, there are some deployment
   scenarios where parts of the session signaling may be assumed
   trustworthy for the purposes of exchanging, in a manner that can be
   authenticated, the fingerprint of an entity's certificate.

   As a concrete example, SIP [RFC3261] and SDP [RFC4566] can be used to
   convey the fingerprint information per [RFC5763].  An endpoint's SIP
   User Agent would send an INVITE message containing SDP for the media
   session along with the endpoint's certificate fingerprint, which can
   be signed using the procedures described in [RFC4474] for the benefit
   of forwarding the message to other entities.  Other entities can now
   verify the fingerprints match the certificates found in the DTLS-SRTP
   connections to find the identity of the far end of the DTLS-SRTP
   connection and check that is the authorized entity.




Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   Ultimately, if using session signaling, an endpoint's certificate
   fingerprint would need to be securely mapped to a user and conveyed
   to the KMF so that it can check that that user is authorized.
   Similarly, the KMF's certificate fingerprint can be conveyed to
   endpoint in a manner that can be authenticated as being an authorized
   KMF for this conference.

6.  Attacks on Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing

   This framework, and the individual protocols defined to support it,
   must take care to not increase the exposure to Denial of Service
   (DoS) attacks by untrusted or third-party entities and should take
   measures to mitigate, where possible, more serious DoS attacks from
   on-path and off-path attackers.

   The following section enumerates the kind of attacks that will be
   considered in the development of this framework's solution.

6.1.  Third Party Attacks

   On-path attacks are mitigated by HBH integrity protection and
   encryption.  The integrity protection mitigates packet modification
   and encryption makes selective blocking of packets harder, but not
   impossible.

   Off-path attackers may try connecting to different PERC entities and
   send specifically crafted packets.  A successful attacker might be
   able to get the MDD to forward such packets.  If not making use of
   HBH authentication on the MDD, such an attack could only be detected
   in the receiving endpoints where the forged packets would finally be
   dropped.

   Another potential attack is a third party claiming to be an MDD,
   fooling endpoints in to sending packets to the false MDD instead of
   the correct one.  The deceived sending endpoints could incorrectly
   assuming their packets have been delivered to endpoints when they in
   fact have not.  Further, the false MDD may cascade to another
   legitimate MDD creating a false version of the real conference.  This
   attack is mitigated since false MDD would not be authenicated by the
   KMF and be able tunnel the DTLS-SRTP signaling to/from the KMF.
   Since it cannot tunnel the DTLS-SRTP signaling, endpoints will not
   get the KEK and the conference will not go on.  [TO DO: Include the
   exchange valid MDD certficates with the KMF in this doc or not?]








Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


6.2.  MDD Attacks

   The MDD can attack the session in a number of possible ways.

6.2.1.  Denial of service

   Any modification of the end-to-end authenticated data will result in
   the receiving endpoint getting an integrity failure when performing
   authentication on the received packet.

   The MDD can also attempt to perform resource consumption attacks on
   the receiving endpoint.  One such attack would be to insert random
   SSRC/CSRC values in any RTP packet with an inband key-distribution
   message attached (i.e., Full EKT Field).  Since such a message would
   trigger the receiver to form a new cryptographic context, the MDD can
   attempt to consume the receiving endpoints resources.

   Another denial of service attack is where the MDD rewrites the PT
   field to indicate a different codec.  The effect of this attack is
   that any payload packetized and encoded according to one RTP payload
   format is then processed using another payload format and codec.
   Assuming that the implementation is robust to random input, it is
   unlikely to cause crashes in the receiving software/hardware.
   However, it is not unlikely that such rewriting will cause severe
   media degradation.

   For audio formats, this attack is likely to cause highly disturbing
   audio and/or can be damaging to hearing and playout equipment.

6.2.2.  Replay Attack

   Replay attack is when an already received packets from a previous
   point in the RTP stream is replayed as new packet.  This could, for
   example, allow an MDD to transmit a sequence of packets identified as
   a user saying "yes", instead of the "no" the user actually said.

   The mitigation for a replay attack is to prevent old packets beyond a
   small-to-modest jitter and network re-ordering sized window to be
   rejected.  End-to-end replay protection MUST be provided for the
   whole duration of the conference.

6.2.3.  Delayed Playout Attack

   The delayed playout attack is a variant of the replay attack.  This
   attack is possible even if E2E replay protection is in place.
   However, due to fact that the MDD is allowed to select a sub-set of
   streams and not forward the rest to a receiver, such as in forwarding
   only the most active speakers, the receiver has to accept gaps in the



Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   E2E packet sequence.  The issue with this is that an MDD can select
   to not deliver a particular stream for a while.

   Within the window from last packet forwarded to the receiver and the
   latest received by the MDD, the MDD can select an arbitrary starting
   point when resuming forwarding packets.  Thus what the media source
   said can be substantially delayed at the receiver with the receiver
   believing that it is what was said just now, and only delayed due to
   transport delay.

6.2.4.  Splicing Attack

   The splicing attack is an attack where an MDD receiving multiple
   media sources splices one media stream into the other.  If the MDD is
   able to change the SSRC without the receiver having any method for
   verifying the original source ID, then the MDD could first deliver
   stream A and then later forward stream B under the same SSRC as
   stream A was previously using.  Not allowing the MDD to change the
   SSRC mitigates this attack.

7.  To-Do List

7.1.  What is Needed to Realize this Framework

   o  Endpoints and KMF must securely convey their respective
      certificate information directly or indirectly via some other
      means or identity service provider.

   o  If as in "Double" draft, the ROC value is no longer in the clear
      and associated with the "outer" protection scheme, we may need to
      require that the MDD maintain a separate ROC value for each SSRC
      sent to each separate endpoint.  This ROC value should start at 0
      regardless of the sequence number in that first packet sent to an
      endpoint.  [EDIT: Do we document this in this framework or in
      Double draft?]

   o  Investigate adding ability to enable the transmission of one-way
      media from a non-trusted device (e.g., announcements).  One
      possible solution is to have the KMF send an "ekt_key" message
      that is explicitly labeled for receive-only and giving that to
      announcement servers.  As opposed to modifying the EKT spec for
      this PERC-specific need, we could say in the framework that EKT
      Keys with a SPI > 32000, say, are intended for this purpose and
      trusted endpoints should only use those EKT Keys to decrypt Full
      EKT Fields received from such transmitters.  Thus, trusted
      endpoints would never send media with EKT Keys having those SPI
      values.




Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


8.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations for this document.

9.  Security Considerations

   [TBD]

10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Mo Zanaty and Christian Oien for
   invaluable input on this document.  Also, we would like to
   acknowledge Nermeen Ismail for serving on the initial versions of
   this document as a co-author.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.jennings-perc-double]
              Jennings, C., Jones, P., and A. Roach, "SRTP Double
              Encryption Procedures", draft-jennings-perc-double-01
              (work in progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.jennings-perc-srtp-ekt-diet]
              Mattsson, J., McGrew, D., Wing, D., Andreasen, F., and C.
              Jennings, "Encrypted Key Transport for Secure RTP", March
              2016.

   [I-D.jones-perc-dtls-tunnel]
              Jones, P., "DTLS Tunnel between Media Distribution Device
              and Key Management Function to Facilitate Key Exchange",
              draft-jones-perc-dtls-tunnel-02 (work in progress),
              March 2016.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
              July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.







Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.

   [RFC5764]  McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
              Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, DOI
              10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>.

   [RFC6904]  Lennox, J., "Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure
              Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 6904, DOI
              10.17487/RFC6904, April 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6904>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update]
              Westerlund, M. and S. Wenger, "RTP Topologies", draft-
              ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update-10 (work in progress),
              July 2015.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

   [RFC4474]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for
              Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC4474, August 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4474>.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
              July 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.

   [RFC5763]  Fischl, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Rescorla, "Framework
              for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
              (SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer
              Security (DTLS)", RFC 5763, DOI 10.17487/RFC5763, May
              2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5763>.







Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           Private Media Framework              March 2016


   [RFC6464]  Lennox, J., Ed., Ivov, E., and E. Marocco, "A Real-time
              Transport Protocol (RTP) Header Extension for Client-to-
              Mixer Audio Level Indication", RFC 6464, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC6464, December 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6464>.

Authors' Addresses

   Paul Jones
   Cisco
   7025 Kit Creek Rd.
   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27709
   USA

   Phone: +1 919 476 2048
   Email: paulej@packetizer.com


   David Benham
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, California  95134
   USA

   Email: dbenham@cisco.com


























Jones & Benham         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/