report on security risks of applying CALEA to VoIP

[Susan Landau]

				Tuesday  13 June 2006  at 10:35

Below you'll find an executive summary of "Security Implications of
Applying the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act to Voice
over IP," by Steve Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Ernie Brickell, Clint Brooks,
Vint
Cerf, Whit Diffie, Susan Landau, Jon Peterson, John Treichler.

The full report is at:
http://www.itaa.org/news/docs/CALEAVOIPreport.pdf.

Susan



Security Implications of Applying the Communications Assistance to Law
Enforcement Act to Voice over IP

  Steven Bellovin, Columbia University
  Matt Blaze,  University of Pennsylvania
  Ernest Brickell, Intel Corporation
  Clinton Brooks, NSA (retired)
  Vinton Cerf, Google
  Whitfield Diffie, Sun Microsystems
  Susan Landau, Sun Microsystems
  Jon Peterson, NeuStar
  John Treichler, Applied Signal Technology


Executive Summary

For many people, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) looks like a nimble
way of using a computer to make phone calls.  Download the software,
pick
an identifier and then wherever there is an Internet connection, you can
make a phone call.  From this perspective, it makes perfect sense that
anything that can be done with a telephone, including the graceful
accommodation of wiretapping, should be able to be done readily with
VoIP
as well.

The FCC has issued an order for all ``interconnected'' and all broadband
access VoIP services to comply with Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA) --- without specific regulations on what
compliance
would mean.  The FBI has suggested that CALEA should apply to all forms
of
VoIP, regardless of the technology involved in the VoIP implementation.

Intercept against a VoIP call made from a fixed location with a fixed IP
address directly to a big internet provider's access router is
equivalent
to wiretapping a normal phone call, and classical PSTN-style CALEA
concepts
can be applied directly. In fact, these intercept capabilities can be
exactly the same in the VoIP case if the ISP properly secures its
infrastructure and wiretap control process as the PSTN's central offices
are assumed to do.

However, the network architectures of the Internet and the Public
Switched
Telephone Network (PSTN) are substantially different, and these
differences
lead to security risks in applying the CALEA to VoIP.  VoIP, like most
Internet communications, are communications for a mobile environment.
The
feasibility of applying CALEA to more decentralized VoIP services is
quite
problematic.  Neither the manageability of such a wiretapping regime nor
whether it can be made secure against subversion seem clear.  The real
danger is that a CALEA-type regimen is likely to introduce serious
vulnerabilities through its ``architected security breach.''

Potential problems include the difficulty of determining where the
traffic
is coming from (the VoIP provider enables the connection but may not
provide the services for the actual conversation), the difficulty of
ensuring safe transport of the signals to the law-enforcement facility,
the
risk of introducing new vulnerabilities into Internet communications,
and
the difficulty of ensuring proper minimization.  VOIP implementations
vary
substantially across the Internet making it impossible to implement
CALEA
uniformly.  Mobility and the ease of creating new identities on the
Internet exacerbate the problem.

Building a comprehensive VoIP intercept capability into the Internet
appears to require the cooperation of a very large portion of the
routing
infrastructure, and the fact that packets are carrying voice is largely
irrelevant.  Indeed, most of the provisions of the wiretap law do not
distinguish among different types of electronic communications.
Currently
the FBI is focused on applying CALEA's design mandates to VoIP, but
there
is nothing in wiretapping law that would argue against the extension of
intercept design mandates to all types of Internet communications.
Indeed,
the changes necessary to meet CALEA requirements for VoIP would likely
have
to be implemented in a way that covered all forms of Internet
communication.

In order to extend authorized interception much beyond the easy
scenario,
it is necessary either to eliminate the flexibility that Internet
communications allow, or else introduce serious security risks to
domestic
VoIP implementations.  The former would have significant negative
effects
on U.S. ability to innovate, while the latter is simply dangerous.  The
current FBI and FCC direction on CALEA applied to VoIP carries great
risks.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com

----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]