Network Working Group                                         C. Perkins
Internet-Draft                                     University of Glasgow
Intended status: BCP                                       July 13, 2009
Expires: January 14, 2010


   Guidelines for the use of Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP
                draft-perkins-avt-srtp-vbr-audio-01.txt

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   This memo discusses potential security issues that arise when using
   variable bit rate audio with the secure RTP profile.  Guidelines to
   mitigate these issues are suggested.



Perkins                 Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Using VBR audio with SRTP              July 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Guidelines for use of VBR Audio with SRTP . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Guidelines for use of Voice Activity Detection with SRTP  . . . 4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5







































Perkins                 Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Using VBR audio with SRTP              July 2009


1.  Introduction

   The secure RTP framework (SRTP) [RFC3711] is a widely used framework
   for securing RTP sessions.  SRTP provides the ability to encrypt the
   payload of an RTP packet, and optionally add an authentication tag,
   while leaving the RTP header and any header extension in the clear.
   A range of encryption transforms can be used with SRTP, but none of
   the pre-defined encryption transforms use any padding; the RTP and
   SRTP payload sizes match exactly.

   When using SRTP with voice streams compressed using variable bit rate
   (VBR) codecs, the length of the compressed packets will therefore
   depend on the characteristics of the speech signal.  This variation
   in packet size will leak significant amounts of information about the
   contents of the speech signal.  For example [spot-me] shows that
   known phrases in an encrypted call can be recognised with high
   accuracy in certain circumstances, without breaking the encryption.
   Other work, referenced from [spot-me], has shown that the language
   spoken in encrypted conversations can also be recognised.  This is
   potentially a significant security risk for some applications.  This
   memo discusses ways in which this traffic analysis risk may be
   mitigated.

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


2.  Guidelines for use of VBR Audio with SRTP

   To avoid the potential information leaks that might enable traffic
   analysis, VBR audio codecs that alter the size or spacing of their
   output according to the characteristics of the input speech signal
   SHOULD NOT be used with encrypted SRTP sessions.

   It is safe to use variable rate coding to adapt the output of a voice
   codec the match characteristics of a network channel, for example for
   congestion control purposes, provided this adaptation done in a way
   that does not expose any information on the speech signal.  That is,
   if the variation is driven by the available network bandwidth, not by
   the input speech (i.e. if the packet sizes and spacing are constant
   unless the network conditions change).  VBR speech codecs can safely
   be used in this fashion with SRTP while avoiding leaking information
   on the contents of the speech signal that might be useful for traffic
   analysis.






Perkins                 Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Using VBR audio with SRTP              July 2009


3.  Guidelines for use of Voice Activity Detection with SRTP

   Many speech codecs employ some form of voice activity detection (VAD)
   to either suppress output frames, or generate some form of lower-rate
   comfort noise frames, during periods when the speaker is not active.
   If VAD is used on an encrypted speech signal, then some information
   about the characteristics of that speech signal can be determined by
   watching the patterns of voice activity.  This information leakage is
   less than with VBR coding since only the lengths of continuous bursts
   of voice activity can be determined, and not the length of individual
   words or phonemes, but is still potentially a concern.

   The information leakage due to VAD in SRTP audio sessions can be much
   reduced if the sender adds an unpredictable "overhang" period to the
   end of active speech intervals, so obscuring their actual length. an
   RTP sender using VAD with encrypted SRTP audio SHOULD insert such an
   overhang period at the end of each talkspurt, delaying the start of
   the silence/comfort noise by a random interval.  The length of the
   overhang applied to each talkspurt must be randomly chosen in such a
   way that it is computationally infeasible for an attacker to predict
   the length of that talkspurt.  The audio data comprising the overhang
   period must be packetised and transmitted in RTP packets in a manner
   that is indistinguishable from the other data in the talkspurt.

   The application of such a random overhang period to each talkspurt
   will reduce the effectiveness of VAD in SRTP sessions when compared
   to non-SRTP sessions.  It is, however, still expected that the use of
   VAD will provide a significant bandwidth saving for many encrypted
   sessions.


4.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [RFC3711] apply.

   It might be thought that it is sufficient to pad the output of a VBR
   codec using RTP padding to generate constant size RTP data packets as
   a means of mitigating the traffic analysis attacks considered here
   (indeed, [spot-me] suggests such a mitigation).  Section 3.1 of
   [RFC3711] discusses potential problems with this approach, which mean
   that it is NOT RECOMMENDED in general.


5.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions are required.





Perkins                 Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Using VBR audio with SRTP              July 2009


6.  Acknowledgements

   This memo is based on the discussion in [spot-me].  Recent versions
   of ZRTP [I-D.zimmermann-avt-zrtp] contain a similar recommendation;
   the purpose of this memo is to highlight these issues to a wider
   audience, since they are not specific to ZRTP.  Thanks are due to
   Phil Zimmermann, Stefan Dohla, Mats Naslund, Jean-Marc Valin, Gregory
   Maxwell, David McGrew, and Mark Baugher for their comments and
   feedback on this memo.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.zimmermann-avt-zrtp]
              Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., and J. Callas, "ZRTP: Media
              Path Key Agreement for Secure RTP",
              draft-zimmermann-avt-zrtp-15 (work in progress),
              March 2009.

   [spot-me]  Wright, C., Ballard, L., Coull, S., Monrose, F., and G.
              Masson, "Spot me if you can: Uncovering spoken phrases in
              encrypted VoIP conversation", Proceedings of the  IEEE
              Symposium on Security and Privacy 2008, May 2008.


Author's Address

   Colin Perkins
   University of Glasgow
   Department of Computing Science
   Glasgow  G12 8QQ
   UK

   Email: csp@csperkins.org






Perkins                 Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 5]