Subject: [perpass] draft-tschofenig-perpass-surveillance-00.txt

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:37:40 +0200

Hi all,

with Bruce Schneiers proposal to dedicate the November IETF meeting to 
the topic of surveillance there was a lot of discussion about what the 
IETF can do in this area.

In preparation of an IAB tech chat and the technical plenary about 
Internet hardening I prepared a short presentation to the IAB.

The presentation contained a summary of some of the discovered attacks 
and tried to explain how they relate to the bigger security picture.

While many of you, as security experts, are aware of the role and the 
limitations of the IETF in security others in the IAB thought it would 
be useful to produce a short writeup.

I produced that write-up and you can find it here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-perpass-surveillance-00

It might help others to understand what we can do ourselves in standards 
development and where we have to work with communities outside the IETF 
to make a difference.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Linus Nordberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:57:19 +0200

Hi Hannes,

Thanks for writing draft-tschofenig-perpass-surveillance-00. I wish I
could muster the powers needed to make text.

Generally, I lack information about what's often called meta-data or
traffic data and the key issue here -- linkability. I don't really know
what I want to say here. I started a private thread with Stephen about a
month ago but then dropped the ball. It's quite broad and I don't know
how to tackle it really.

Should 2.2 mention IPv4? Widely (heh) deployed protocol leaking
meta-data by design. I think it should be touched upon even if we don't
expect changes to it. Maybe that's exactly why we must mention it
somewhere -- some people do not grasp it while others might be hesitant
to touch the issue. IPv6 is another one. I bet there are more.

Typos and other minor things.

- Is the expire date 2014-04-24 correct?

- 2.1. s/a a/a/1

- 2.1. s/'crypto-aglity'/'crypto-agility'/1

- 2.2. s/exploided/exploited/1

- 2.4. last sentence "With the juridiction [...]" needs some love.

- 3. copied from another document

- 6. [10] and [11], swap Nadia and IETF

Http vs https. (Flogging a dead horse?)

- 6. the following urls could and should be https rather than http:
  http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/105499/Browser-Exploit-Against-SSL-TLS.html
  http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/stop-using-nsa-influence-code-in-our-product-rsa-tells-customers/
  http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/10263/should-we-trust-the-nist-recommended-ecc-parameters

- 6. (and other places) the following urls should be https even if they
  redirect to https, both for educational reasons and for security/privacy
  (not leaking the full url, not having to trust that a hijacker doesn't
  eat the redirect):
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/current/maillist.html
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/

- 6. (and other places) the following urls should have a warning about
  not being https or perhaps have their content mirrored on a site
  providing https (with a proper certificate):
  http://boingboing.net/2013/08/05/anti-tor-malware-reported-back.html
  http://fileperms.org/whatsapp-is-broken-really-broken/ (bad certificate)
  http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/nsa-router-hacking/ (bad certificate)
  http://www.tschofenig.priv.at (bad certificate)
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info (404)

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:02:33 +0200

Hi Linus,

thanks for your review. I have taken your comments into account and have 
updated the document accordingly. Here is the new version:
https://github.com/hannestschofenig/tschofenig-ids/blob/master/surveillance/draft-tschofenig-perpass-surveillance-01.txt

Regarding the question about meta-data vs. actual content I believe that 
is subject of a separate document, namely the one that Brian Trammell 
wrote.

The other thing is that I wanted to keep it at a high level since the 
document is only supposed to provide an introduction to the plenary.

Ciao
Hannes