XEP-0139: Security SIG

1. Introduction¶

Because security is a core value within the Jabber community, it is appropriate for the XMPP Standards Foundation to assess potential security threats related to technologies that implement the Jabber protocols (including XMPP and defined XMPP extensions), as well as ways to address the threats (for general information about the Internet threat model, see RFC 3552 [1]). Furthermore, since security threats are wide-ranging and of broad concern, it would be valuable for interested members of the entire Jabber community to discuss these matters. Unfortunately, security discussions can often be theoretical, contentious, and inconclusive. Thus it is imperative that discussion proceed based on a methodical process of threat identification, risk analysis, and prioritization before moving on to documentation of threat responses (preferably in protocol specifications such as XMPP Extension Protocols (XEP-0001) [2]). This document proposes a forum and process for such security discussions in the form of a Special Interest Group (see Special Interest Groups (XEP-0002) [3]) that shall report to the XMPP Council [4] in accordance with Article VIII of the XSF Bylaws [5].

2. Scope and Role¶

The role of the Security SIG shall be to identify and describe security threats related to Jabber technologies, analyze their potential risk, assign priorities to each threat, provide references to existing responses, and (where appropriate) provisionally recommend improvements in Jabber protocols and technologies in order to address the identified threats. The Security SIG shall not itself develop or approve protocols, which tasks shall remain under the purview of the Standards SIG [6] and the Jabber Council respectively.

3. Membership¶

The Security SIG shall be open to the public and shall not be limited to elected members of the XMPP Standards Foundation. Security SIG discussions shall be conducted in open forums, including a dedicated mailing list at <security-jig@jabber.org>. The process for moderating such discussions shall be decided by the members of the Security SIG, but such moderation is strongly encouraged in order to follow the orderly process of threat identification and risk analysis outlined below.

4. Lifetime¶

The Security SIG shall be a standing SIG, and shall exist as long as the Jabber Council deems it useful.

5. Deliverables¶

The Security SIG shall produce at least the following deliverables:

1. A brief document specifying the process by which the SIG shall identify, define, analyze, and prioritize a collection of documented security-related threats. This process document will not identify threats or define ways to address them, but instead specify the process to be followed in Steps 2 and 3 below. In defining the process, the SIG should also describe some of its guiding principles, such as:

   1. Rough consensus and running code are superior to "perfect" solutions
   2. Security measures that cannot or will not be implemented are useless
   3. Iteration works better than trying to define all solutions up front

2. A template to be used for documenting each identified threat. This template should include:

   1. A name for the threat
   2. An abstract that briefly describes the threat
   3. A clear and thorough definition of the threat, preferably to include an attack tree [7]
   4. The estimated likelihood of the threat (e.g., high/medium/low)
   5. The estimated potential damage the threat could cause (e.g., high/medium/low)
   6. A resulting priority for addressing the threat
   7. Existing approaches for addressing the threat (e.g., as documented in a XEP)
   8. The gap between the identified threat and existing responses
   9. Potential approaches to addressing the threat or closing the gap, including implementation issues associated with each approach (since security measures that cannot or will not be implemented are useless)
   10. Current recommended approach (which may be "do nothing at this time")

   The template will not fully define the foregoing information, but instead specify what information must be defined for each threat when completing the analysis described in Step 3.

3. An evolving document that completes the template defined in Step 2 for all identified threats by following the process established in Step 1. The result will be a thorough analysis of all potential security threats related to Jabber protocols and technologies. Note: This document shall not define complete solutions to the identified threats, although it may outline potential and recommended approaches. Solutions shall be defined in standalone documents such as XEPs.

Appendices

Appendix A: Document Information¶

Series

XEP

Number

0139

Publisher

XMPP Standards Foundation

Status

Retracted

Type

SIG Formation

Version

0.2

Last Updated

2004-09-15

Approving Body

XMPP Council

Dependencies

None

Supersedes

None

Superseded By

None

Short Name

N/A

Source Control

HTML

This document in other formats: XML  PDF

Appendix B: Author Information¶

Peter Saint-Andre

Email

stpeter@stpeter.im

JabberID

stpeter@jabber.org

URI

https://stpeter.im/

Will Kamishlian

Email

will@will-k.com

JabberID

will@jabberdoc.org

Appendix C: Legal Notices¶

Appendix D: Relation to XMPP¶

The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is defined in the XMPP Core (RFC 6120) and XMPP IM (RFC 6121) specifications contributed by the XMPP Standards Foundation to the Internet Standards Process, which is managed by the Internet Engineering Task Force in accordance with RFC 2026. Any protocol defined in this document has been developed outside the Internet Standards Process and is to be understood as an extension to XMPP rather than as an evolution, development, or modification of XMPP itself.

Appendix E: Discussion Venue¶

The primary venue for discussion of XMPP Extension Protocols is the <standards@xmpp.org> discussion list.

Discussion on other xmpp.org discussion lists might also be appropriate; see <https://xmpp.org/community/> for a complete list.

Errata can be sent to <editor@xmpp.org>.

Appendix F: Requirements Conformance¶

The following requirements keywords as used in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119: "MUST", "SHALL", "REQUIRED"; "MUST NOT", "SHALL NOT"; "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED"; "SHOULD NOT", "NOT RECOMMENDED"; "MAY", "OPTIONAL".

Appendix G: Notes¶

Appendix H: Revision History¶

Note: Older versions of this specification might be available at https://xmpp.org/extensions/attic/

1. Version 0.2 (2004-09-15)¶
   Changed status to Retracted since it now appears unnecessary to form a SIG in order to complete this work; rather, it should be sufficient to write a XEP and solicit feedback from appropriate security experts before the Last Call. However, such a XEP should use the process described herein.
   psa
2. Version 0.1 (2004-07-26)¶
   Initial version.
   psa/wk
3. Version 0.1 (2004-07-26)¶
   Initial version.
   psa/wk

Appendix I: Bib(La)TeX Entry

@report{saint-andre2004n/a,
  title = {Security SIG},
  author = {Saint-Andre, Peter and Kamishlian, Will},
  type = {XEP},
  number = {0139},
  version = {0.2},
  institution = {XMPP Standards Foundation},
  url = {https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0139.html},
  date = {2004-07-26/2004-09-15},
}

END