Subject: [Ecrit] [ecrit] #12: Introduction

From: "ecrit issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:32:32 -0000

#12: Introduction

 Currently the introduction does not do a very good job of introducing the
 problem to be solved, and why it is important.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-ecrit-
  [email-masked]          |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  trustworthy-location     |    Version:  1.0
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/trac/ticket/12>
ecrit <http://tools.ietf.org/ecrit/>

---

From: "ecrit issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:33:06 -0000

#12: Introduction

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Here is a proposed revision to Section 1 that may help:

 1.  Introduction

    Several public and commercial services depend upon location
    information in their operations.  This includes emergency services
    (such as fire, ambulance and police) as well as commercial services
    such as food delivery and roadside assistance.

    Services that depend on location commonly experience security issues
    today.  While prank calls have been a problem for emergency services
    dating back to the time of street corner call boxes, with the move to
    IP-based emergency services, the ability to launch automated attacks
    has increased.  As the European Emergency Number Association (EENA)
    has noted: "False emergency calls divert emergency services away from
    people who may be in life-threatening situations and who need urgent
    help.  This can mean the difference between life and death for
    someone in trouble."

    EENA [EENA] has attempted to define terminology and describe best
    current practices for dealing with false emergency calls, which in
    certain European countries can constitute as much as 70% of all
    emergency calls.  Reducing the number of prank calls represents a
    challenge, since emergency services authorities in most countries are
    required to answer every call (whenever possible).  Where the caller
    cannot be identified, the ability to prosecute is limited.

    Since prank emergency calls can endanger bystanders or emergency
    services personnel, or divert resources away from legitimate
    emergencies, they can be life threatening.  A particularly dangerous
    form of prank call is "swatting" - an prank emergency call that draws
    a response from law enforcement (e.g. a fake hostage situation that
    results in dispatching of a "Special Weapons And Tactics" (SWAT)
    team).  The recent increase in the frequency and sophistication of
    these attacks has lead to the FBI issuing a warning [Swatting].

    Many documented cases of "swatting" involve not only the faking of an
    emergency, but also the absence of accurate caller identification and
    the delivery of misleading location data.  Today these attacks are
    often carried out by providing false caller identification, since for
    circuit-switched calls from landlines, location provided to the PSAP
    is determined from a lookup using the calling telephone number.  With
    IP-based emergency services, in addition to the potential for false
    caller identification, it is also possible to attach misleading
    location information to the emergency call.

    Ideally, a call taker at a PSAP should be put in the position to
    assess, in real-time, the level of trust that can be placed on the
    information provided within a call.  This includes automated location
    conveyed along with the call and location information communicated by
    the caller, as well as identity information about the caller.  Where
    real-time assessment is not possible, it is important to be able to
    determine the source of the call in a post-mortem, so as to be able
    to enforce accountability.

    This document defines terminology (including the meaning of
    "trustworthy location") in Section 1.1, investigates security threats
    in Section 2, outlines potential solutions in Section 3 and discusses
    security considerations in Section 4.

 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/trac/ticket/12#comment:1>
ecrit <http://tools.ietf.org/ecrit/>