Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program on Wholistic Human-Oriented Discussions on Identity Systems (WHODIS)

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 12:42 AM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> As long as we keep e.g.: corporate naming schemes such as eckert-<whatever>
> for all equipment assigned to me at some employer, i am sure that the
> trackers will be happy to have us develop hardly tracable user-identity
> for us as people.
>
> Translation: tongue in cheek example for how device identity/naming may
> undermine
> user identity, and that i fear such outcome will be more likely if we
> ignore it
> in the process we're about to engage in.
>

That strikes me as an anti-pattern for the reasons you suggest.

I have been trying very hard to avoid exposing device identifiers to
unauthorized parties. But that imposes some very real costs. Consider the
following scenarios which I think are all pretty good cases for identifying
a device:

* Any interaction with a device that has a static IP address on the public
Internet.
* Alice has 5 devices she uses to log into her employer's SSH systems.

Oh and yes, that first one pretty much busts a great big hole in the
argument IPv6 will make NAT go away. No it will not and it MUST NOT. The
only way to conceal which device I am using is to use some form of NAT.

There are also cases where I definitely don't want my specific device to be
identified. And for some of those I would ideally want to use threshold
techniques so that my phone, watch and laptop all have different shares to
the same signature key. I can prove which device signed a message but
nobody else can without the logs from my threshold service.