Network Working Group D. Schwartz Internet-Draft XConnect Global Networks Intended status: Informational July 7, 2008 Expires: January 8, 2009 RUCUS Test Cases draft-schwartz-rucus-test-cases-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 8, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document is meant to serve as a repository for test cases assoicated with taking some action upon receipt of unwanted communications. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2. Test Case 1: Use of draft-wing-sipping-spam-score-02 . . . ancho 2.1. Test Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.2.1. No Spam Score is generated . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.2.2. 'Whitelist' score from 'trusted' upstream server . ancho 2.2.3. 'Whitelist' score from 'un-trusted' upstream server ancho 2.2.4. 'Graylist' score from upstream server . . . . . . . ancho 2.2.5. 'Blacklist' score from upstream server . . . . . . ancho 2.3. Test Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.3.1. Allow All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.3.2. Allow all containing a SPAM header . . . . . . . . ancho 2.3.3. Allow with no score header or header with specific score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.3.4. Allow only with score header or header with specific score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.4. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.4.1. Response Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.4.2. 'X' Upper limit of the 'whitelist' range . . . . . ancho 2.4.3. 'Y' Upper limit of the 'graylist' range . . . . . . ancho 2.4.4. Primary Route Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.4.5. Secondary Route Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.5. Example Test Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.5.1. Whitelist Trusted Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.5.2. Whitelist Un-Trusted Score . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 2.5.3. Graylist Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . secur 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ancho Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008 1. Introduction As part of the ongoing work to qualify the unwanted communication threat there is a need to document potential approaches being tried throughout the industry. This draft is meant to serve as a repository for these approaches and is intended for informative puroposes only. 2. Test Case 1: Use of draft-wing-sipping-spam-score-02 [I-D.wing-sipping-spam-score] defines a mechanism for SIP proxies to communicate a spam score to downstream SIP proxies and to SIP user agents. This test case discusses a test setup making use of some parts of this spam score draft. To recap, it is desirable for SIP proxies to insert a spam score so that downstream SIP proxies and downstream SIP user agents can use a high score to decide that special handling is required. 2.1. Test Architecture The architecture chosen for this test is quite simple and involves an upstream Spam-Score generation server, a downstream receiving SBC and further downstream destinations (both primary and alternate). The idea is to generate the score and have the SBC behave differently depending on both the presence of a score as well as the actual score. _____________ | | | Primary | | Destination | _________ ________ /| | / \ | | / |_____________| | Spam | | User |/ | Score |----| Agent |\ _____________ | Generator | | Server | \ | | \_________/ |________| \| | | Secondary | | Destination | |_____________| Figure 1: Test Case 1 Architecture Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008 2.2. Use Cases The test consists of five basic scenarios or use cases. For all cases the assumption is that the variable 'X' marks the upper limit of a whitelist indication and that the variable 'Y' marks the upper limit of a graylist indication. 2.2.1. No Spam Score is generated This is a baseline of sorts and is there to test one of two possible outcomes; message dropped and message allowed through, nonetheless. 2.2.2. 'Whitelist' score from 'trusted' upstream server This test has the upstream server generate a 'whitelist' score (0 <= score < X) and the assumption is that there is a trust relationship between the upstream server and the receiving UAS. 2.2.3. 'Whitelist' score from 'un-trusted' upstream server This test has the upstream server generate a 'whitelist' score (0 <= score < X) and the assumption is that there is no trust relationship between the upstream server and the receiving UAS. 2.2.4. 'Graylist' score from upstream server This test has the upstream server generate a 'graylist' score (X <= score < Y) and the assumption is that there is a trust relationship between the upstream server and the receiving UAS. 2.2.5. 'Blacklist' score from upstream server This test has the upstream server generate a 'blacklist' score (Y <= score < 100) and the assumption is that there is a trust relationship between the upstream server and the receiving UAS. 2.3. Test Configurations For each of the use cases listed above we would like to test the following configurations 2.3.1. Allow All In this configuration all calls are allowed to proceed downstream unhindered regardless of both the presence of a score header or the value therein. Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008 2.3.2. Allow all containing a SPAM header In this configuration all calls are allowed to proceed downstream unhindered ONLY if they contain a score header REGARDLESS of the value contained therein. 2.3.3. Allow with no score header or header with specific score In this configuration all calls are allowed to proceed downstream unhindered with no score header. If a header exists, however, the following behavior is followed: 2.3.3.1. 'Whitelist' score Route to Primary destination. 2.3.3.2. 'Graylist' score Route to Secondary destination. 2.3.4. Allow only with score header or header with specific score In this configuration all calls are allowed to proceed downstream unhindered ONLY in presence of score header and than only as per the following behavior: 2.3.4.1. 'Whitelist' score Route to Primary destination. 2.3.4.2. 'Graylist' score Route to Secondary destination. 2.4. Test Parameters The following are configurable per realm: 2.4.1. Response Code This is the response code returned upstream upon blocking of a call due to the suspicion of SPAM. 2.4.2. 'X' Upper limit of the 'whitelist' range This is the value above which calls are assumed to be 'gray'. By default this value is assumed to be 75. Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008 2.4.3. 'Y' Upper limit of the 'graylist' range This is the value above which calls are assumed to be 'black'. By default this value is assumed to be 100. 2.4.4. Primary Route Address Where to route calls not suspected to be SPAM. 2.4.5. Secondary Route Address Where to route calls suspected to be SPAM. This could be a voice mail box for instance. 2.5. Example Test Messages Only the relevant parts of the message are shown: 2.5.1. Whitelist Trusted Score INVITE ... Via: SIP/2.0/TLS trusted.upstream.com;branch=z9hG4bK-14362-1-0 From: white ;tag=1 ... Spam-Score: 0 ;spam-realm=trusted.upstream.com Subject: Spam Score Whitelist Test ... Figure 2: Whitelist Trusted Score 2.5.2. Whitelist Un-Trusted Score INVITE ... Via: SIP/2.0/TLS questionable.upstream.com;branch=z9hG4bK-14 From: white ;tag=1 ... Spam-Score: 0 ;spam-realm=questionable.upstream.com Subject: Spam Score Graylist Test ... Figure 3: Whitelist unTrusted Score Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008 2.5.3. Graylist Score INVITE ... Via: SIP/2.0/TLS trusted.upstream.com;branch=z9hG4bK-14362-1-0 From: white ;tag=1 ... Spam-Score: 75 ;spam-realm=trusted.upstream.com Subject: Spam Score Graylist Test ... Figure 4: Graylist Score 3. Security Considerations This draft does not address the inherent security risks associated with communicating SPAM information in the clear as it is assumed that owing to the prior relationship betweent the sending and receiving parties there is a scure infrastructure in place (e.g. TLS) for the message transfer. 4. Acknowledgements TBD. 5. IANA Considerations None. This document is informational 6. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. [I-D.wing-sipping-spam-score] Wing, D., Niccolini, S., Stiemerling, M., and H. Tschofenig, "Spam Score for SIP", draft-wing-sipping-spam-score-02 (work in progress), February 2008. Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008 Author's Address David Schwartz XConnect Global Networks Malcha Technology Park Building # 1 Jerusalem 90961 Israel Phone: +972 52 347 4656 Email: dschwartz@xconnect.net URI: www.xconnect.net Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RUCUS Test Cases July 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Schwartz Expires January 8, 2009 [Page 9]