[Security] client-to-client security :: Summary and todo's

Dirk Meyer dmeyer at tzi.de
Sat Aug 23 09:03:47 CDT 2008


Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Well, I think we shouldn't use Jingle at all for transfering encrypted
> messages. It just adds too much complexity IMO and I don't always want
> a direct connection. Of course, I could use IBB, but do we really need
> Jingle to transfer it in our XMPP stream? The answer is clearly no.

YOUR answer is clearly no, my answer is YES

> Plus, server admins might block IBB to save traffic, because they
> don't want for example Jingle Video traffic transfered in-band and
> thus disable Jingle IBB. 

If an admin blocks IBB because a user could use it transfer a video,
he would also block encrypted messages because you could hide an IBB
with the video in it.

The solution here is to limit the IBB rate to let's say
100kBit/s. This is no fun for videos. And IIRC server already do
this.

> I'm therefore for not using Jingle as a transport layer, but have
> some transport layer for c2c encryption only.

IF you can give me an example how to verify that you can not open an
IBB in an encrypted stream I would agree. But since we have
IP-over-DNS and other funny things it would take me about 30 minutes
to code IP over encrypted c2c. I already have some code using SOCKS
over XMPP messages, I only need to add encryption.


Dirk

-- 
Real Men don't make backups.  They upload it via ftp and let the world
mirror it.
	-- Linus Torvalds


More information about the Security mailing list