Fwd: Re: autoconfig/ISPDB should be an official module and related Q's

Ludovic Hirlimann lhirlimann at mozilla.com
Tue Sep 3 14:53:01 UTC 2013

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: autoconfig/ISPDB should be an official module and related Q's
Date: 	Tue, 3 Sep 2013 07:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: 	Philippe Chiasson <pchiasson at mozilla.com>
To: 	Ludovic Hirlimann <lhirlimann at mozilla.com>

Philippe M. Chiasson
<gozer at ectoplasm.org <mailto:gozer at ectoplasm.org>>

On 2013-09-02, at 5:28 AM, Ludovic Hirlimann <lhirlimann at mozilla.com
<mailto:lhirlimann at mozilla.com>> wrote:

> Can you reply for the propagation ?
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	autoconfig/ISPDB should be an official module and related Q's
> Date: 	Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:10:28 -0400
> From: 	Andrew Sutherland <asutherland at asutherland.org>
> To: 	tb-planning at mozilla.org
> There doesn't appear to be a module corresponding to the ISPDB database 
> entries or the helper web interface that was created.  We should likely 
> create one for clarity.
> From the r= lines on existing commits to 
> http://svn.mozilla.org/mozillamessaging.com/sites/ispdb.mozillamessaging.com/trunk/ 
> it looks like these are existing reviewers:
> - BenB
> - bwinton
> - gozer
> - sancus
Yes, I've been steadily reviewing these. Not entirely sure why I ended
up doing it, however.
> There also seem to be some one-off reviewers that seem like it was t
> indicating the owner of the service or the supplier of the config or a 
> tester of the config.
> A few related questions, some of which may be answered by wiki pages or 
> other existing docs that I was unable to find:
> - Is 
> http://svn.mozilla.org/mozillamessaging.com/sites/ispdb.mozillamessaging.com/trunk/ 
> still the right repo?  The last commit appears to have been made Sep 6, 
> 2012.
That's the web app, now defunct.
The actual configuration is hosted under autoconfig.momo.com
<http://autoconfig.momo.com> under the same svn repo

> - How does the ISPDB get propagated into production?
Cron job pushes trunk to production on a schedule (15 minute intervals I
> - What team within the Mozilla IT organization is responsible for it 
> staying up?
Falls under webops's responsibility now.
>   Would it make sense to transfer responsibility under 
> whoever runs the Firefox OS services?  Especially because Firefox OS 
> devices get used around the world, my main concern would be making sure 
> that we have the strongest uptime guarantee possible / the biggest pool 
> of people on pager duty around the clock.
A possibility. And the site itself is just a collection of generated
static XML files, so it's very simple.
>  I'm not aware of any 
> historical problems, and maybe there is already one global pool.  Either 
> way, it would be great to get the autoconfig/ISPDB stuff listed on 
> http://status.mozilla.com/ or what not.
Good idea
> - The attack tree for mobile Firefox OS devices that are using 
> potentially suspect wi-fi and/or cellular data where it's feasible for 
> attackers to set up fake cell towers is different than for Thunderbird.  
> Thunderbird assumes a more trustworthy level of network connection.  
> Since wide-spread DNSSEC support is unlikely in the immediate future, I 
> could see us needing to re-visit how autoconfig is implemented for 
> Firefox OS's e-mail client.  Part of the solution might be to use the 
> autoconfig server as something resembling a second, more trusted level 
> of information.  If your device's local network and the SSL-secured 
> response from the autoconfig server agreed on the insecure DNS/HTTP 
> lookups, that's reassuring data.
> We would not want to use the mozilla server as the sole source of truth 
> since creating a single point of attack is a bad idea.  And for 
> simplicity and security audit purposes I would expect us to have the 
> server still be based on a simple svn/hg/git checkout of static data so 
> there's no dynamic app that could have security holes. 
And that's how it's running right now.
>  If there is 
> continued interest in still supporting self-signed certificates, it 
> could also make sense for the ISPDB entries to indicate that self-signed 
> certificate is known to be used and to include the exact key/fingerprint.
A good idea to extend the ispdb API
> Other factors are a desire to potentially include ActiveSync entries in 
> the database or DNS SRV byproducts, which we previously touched on in 
> the "Adding Exchange ActiveSync configs to the Mozilla ISP DB?" thread 
> late last year.
> The question here is whether this use-case is different enough from 
> Thunderbird's use-case that we should consider effectively forking the 
> repo if we revisit the device's autoconfig setup and decide we do want a 
> lot more?  I think the XML schema was forward-looking enough that this 
> wouldn't be required, but since Firefox OS devices exist in such a 
> different world, I think it's worth raising the question, especially 
> because we would likely be doing a lot of automated-but-human-skimmed 
> entry creation.  Also note that we may end up just installing the ISPDB 
> entries on the device as a preliminary step in the future, albeit in a 
> potentially more compressed representation.
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20130903/54349467/attachment.html>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list