Re: [apps-discuss] privacy in applications - anybody working in this area or interested?

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 06 November 2013 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7583721E80A8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:26:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.282
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XFbor8xbIh73 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:26:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD80121E80AE for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:26:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA65QXkh015806; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:26:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1383715598; bh=bCRPHSykISmZtEHVfdaziojjgV+84yrVuWnbIVLIl2E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=fHMGi5KX6feSQfT0TbuiTZfvCBS1cZPxKyyO612E9LCJSXE6Gwq3P5P3lQKXQMAHZ +DFBNOFlGoUaz+ZR0juhrVpO6aWBn7eewyM2b68ZnXOYkZvH66QAvc78Saq9HVFA1B /EOTphQP5u4YHhz1PtxzeZjIyKmaf571HIekPywg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1383715598; i=@resistor.net; bh=bCRPHSykISmZtEHVfdaziojjgV+84yrVuWnbIVLIl2E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Qn8sT3LQYCe3fmK8md8ZQdGte8xTu78YJp2Wlgm9JsC7rAm2LbP9Xy76cBJHxlsZd HZUFcFpmHG5qBdTT5XnyNTr5i0hgUWJK8Q4sWBhUSw0/HM6BzeVYa8WnBLNS6CcAhA VyqxiBqNmMmWH/0/gDCW6Wgf5fBrDGsd9sLc+258=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131105210233.0d495e28@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 21:20:12 -0800
To: Hosnieh Rafiee <ietf@rozanak.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <002101ceda82$f49bd4e0$ddd37ea0$@rozanak.com>
References: <002101ceda82$f49bd4e0$ddd37ea0$@rozanak.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] privacy in applications - anybody working in this area or interested?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 05:26:40 -0000

Hi Hosnieh,
At 15:58 05-11-2013, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
>We're looking for enhancing applications with privacy features by assigning
>different Interface ID (IID) to them. We're looking for people who work on
>privacy in applications. We have a presentation in v6ops tomorrow and we ask
>the people who works in this area to contact us and if possible for them to
>attend to our presentation "iid-lifetime".
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-v6ops-iid-lifetime

If I understood correctly the problem is:

   "This is also gives this ability to attackers to obtain user's
    information by using simple approaches such as creating a fake
    website and use it as trap to find the user's IP addresses."

The proposed solution in the draft is to use a temporary Interface 
ID.  It mentions having a lifetime per application.  If I understood 
correctly the proposal introduces an application identifier.  How 
does the application identify itself to the lower layer when it needs 
to use an IPv6 address?

Regards,
-sm