[sr-dev] DMQ security

[Olle E. Johansson]

On 29 Oct 2013, at 18:40, Jan Janak <jan at janakj.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Olle E. Johansson <oej at edvina.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:58, Jan Janak <jan at janakj.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Olle E. Johansson <oej at edvina.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 29 Oct 2013, at 13:38, Charles Chance <charles.chance at sipcentric.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I agree with Olle that the common "pass the buck" attitude is wrong,
>>>> although in this case I don't believe securing the messages should be
>>>> mandatory. Often the communication between servers will be over a
>>>> private/secure network and the user should be allowed to disable it if they
>>>> deem it an unnecessary overhead.
>>>> 
>>>> Is that another myth - the secure/private/inside network? :-)
>>> 
>>> Have you heard of IPsec?
>> It doesn't happen by default... But yes it's an alternative. The people that use
>> IPsec is not the ones I'm worrying about.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Either way, the ability to use TLS where required is a definite must, so
>>>> I'll go away and look into that now.
>>>> 
>>>> At least write the documentation so that most people believe that they have
>>>> to have TLS and work hard to disable it :-)
>>> 
>>> I am not convinced this is the right documentation style. I think
>>> documentation should be balanced, it's IMHO better to explain what
>>> options are available and not force a particular security mechanism
>>> down people's throat.
>> 
>> Well, we've been at this for many years and still all of us have a very
>> limited number of installations using security mechanisms we have.
>> 
>> Why is that? I don't think that it's because they use IPsec. ;-)
> 
> Are you concerned about client-to-server or server-cluster scenarios?
> 
> I was mainly pointing out that TLS is not necessarily the first choice
> when it comes to securing communication in server clusters, which is
> AFAIK where the dmq module is meant to be used. And in this particular
> case I'm not sure if making it hard to disable is the right choice.
The problem we've experienced painfully in Asterisk is that there's no first choice at all.
People use the stuff without any security. yes, that's stupid,  yes, it should not happen.

But not everyone are like you and Alex. We might want to start building
something that helps the ones that doesn't understand about the need for security,
instead of doing the opposite and let them fall. 

People that understand will always find the solution
that fits their requirements anyway.

Kamailio is getting used outside of our historical user base with tech-savy admins.
I think we should start thinking about how to handle that.

Anyway, this discussion is now outside of the DMQ module and should propably
continue in a general dev meeting.
/O
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2374 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20131029/e0fd76eb/attachment-0001.bin>