Re: [Captive-portals] [Int-area] [homenet] [EXTERNAL] Re: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

Juan Carlos Zuniga <j.c.zuniga@ieee.org> Tue, 29 September 2020 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <j.c.zuniga@ieee.org>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B160F3A113B for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ieee.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XAfeZL5Q4VtG for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3025A3A113C for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id m17so6215552ioo.1 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DxPESRM2XScl63SBNDAd48Y2HEIkWfmACREHiRAdr8M=; b=dzrfNG0C4T1Cm/iBPLZtSNZkugqRx7wll+VS3+yLB7Z9KVC0rn6JDvcchGfGcEPfL3 qCgwHm6Wc9a5rPHGp1iTkELodfvRBafa8JBHL3SFLIJ7fnv3B/21XfJJk3rhlAgvTtjY XML2u9HWNN9JXmSavHYchWdb8/kqYmHr4vIyo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DxPESRM2XScl63SBNDAd48Y2HEIkWfmACREHiRAdr8M=; b=cWwZzqDy3Bpi7HCS/rL8+Z9mUUri+9uVDTRGMBCmIe1wkOzvPc0ukqM+O2UiggC3yN uJzWs0IB6C093BPznn7bHTVl1yZhxwZUnpSd3FZrJX09FSczCCmnbAg/bs+j0hiZX4vj ASn9F38sOMUPiQj9pvLUAjHD+6uI4MonAG1K10iQ/ESXDos61l63W9xjTs+vQuc6LzCH Zgx90acTA9FZqBBQcfWeFaCiz/MaVIi+bWA+9qz/9nC/sf2XI7dyosguiogWZfyNqIYp Ue5JqinoH/ZddEVb2wf/kfNThjpyb6UmN9S/XLMR/gF82F8uIuXop3ET2CeVW4SDjonh KJ+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532wZEM6COMuldWZsviTTBzPjRY4KcFjvdiw6UP5/GtroGgcbyPu bOXsAXlNGZy8W/U3sikubuKDTnn9kajNh2qujnerYyKMvqv3tg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyfrD3+O/bBtnjcbqN/pFp3IRDGBIFptMBkF0kufv8Z18MdG/nodATorDpB85zr1+AYsBo8ybtPf48Ht7z+VPg=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8c0c:: with SMTP id n12mr3782440ioj.147.1601410240274; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200922201317.097C3389D4@tuna.sandelman.ca> <15660.1600807202@localhost> <902400f2-9172-9581-25ab-59ad08e67bee@cs.tcd.ie> <D81695FF-973F-472D-BC0A-9B0F57278B21@comcast.com> <ca575a6b-987e-d998-2713-91e45190f5ea@cs.tcd.ie> <0A436777-D9CE-4A4C-BE45-C8C2CAB9FBF6@comcast.com> <29901277-6da1-46fc-b244-ca289005841d@www.fastmail.com> <af0451b1-8eae-4714-849f-d6e384dda075@huitema.net> <19117.1601400596@localhost> <CAH1iCip7UBe+FR-Cz+sP6SdS11NUQC9gV_s=99yO0tjcvCcX6A@mail.gmail.com> <4215.1601404884@localhost> <3a4b39c8-6b71-5d84-1422-3470c3b01591@cs.tcd.ie> <037001d69698$4b7a4cf0$e26ee6d0$@akayla.com>
In-Reply-To: <037001d69698$4b7a4cf0$e26ee6d0$@akayla.com>
From: Juan Carlos Zuniga <j.c.zuniga@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 16:10:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHLBt83U67qntQN8gx5Kez8oLBBfZN281qBBTMTDae+E+gETfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, captive-portals@ietf.org, homenet@ietf.org, int-area@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000083256905b0796086"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/MyTBFV8P0_UqBYyxVKXqU01f7mg>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] [Int-area] [homenet] [EXTERNAL] Re: Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <captive-portals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/captive-portals/>
List-Post: <mailto:captive-portals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:10:44 -0000

Indeed, this is a continuation of the work started at IEEE 802 back in 2014
after the STRINT Workshop pre-IETF 89 [1] [2].



So far IEEE 802 has developed the (soon to be published) 802E Privacy
Recommendations [3], the recommended use of MAC address randomization in
802c [4], and now the work in 802.11 that Peter points out.



We carried out the experiment on the IETF (x2) and IEEE 802 Wi-Fi meeting
networks and we published some results at the time [5]. Even though we
found some very minor impact on DHCP, the experiment showed that MAC
address randomization worked fine. However, as we pointed out the Privacy
issues should not stop at L3.



If there is a good take away from that work, it is that Privacy cannot be
solved at a single layer, and effective solutions should be system-wide.



Juan Carlos





[1]
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/14/ec-14-0043-01-00EC-internet-privacy-tutorial.pdf


[2] http://www.ieee802.org/PrivRecsg/

[3] https://1.ieee802.org/security/802e/

[4] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8016709

[5] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7390443/  pre-print:
https://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/papers/pdf/2015_bernardos_cscn_privacy.pdf

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com> wrote:

> On 29/09/2020 12:03, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> > More on-topic, I do think MAC address randomisation has a role to play
> for WiFi as it does for BLE, but yes there is a lack of guidance as to how
> to implement and deploy such techniques well. It's a bit tricky though as
> it's fairly OS dependent so maybe not really in scope for the IETF?
> > (For the last 3 years I've set a possible student project in this space,
> but each time a student has considered it, it turned out "too hard";-)
>
> As I mentioned previously, IEEE 802.11 is looking into this area, both
> from an operational perspective and from a privacy perspective. New IEEE
> 802.11 amendments (IEEE 802.11bh and IEEE 802.11bi, if approved) are being
> discussed. The (very) high-level documents describing each can be found at
> [1] and [2]. I would be happy to convey input to IEEE 802.11 regarding
> either document, particularly in regards to layers 3 and above. Without
> wishing to open up a can of worms about meeting fees, I will note that IEEE
> 802.11 is currently not charging for its online meetings, so if anyone
> wishes to take part in the random MAC address discussions directly, the
> next meeting will be held in early November. The RCM Study Group met
> yesterday morning (Americas) and will meet again in two weeks. See [3].
>
>                 -Peter
>
> [1]
> https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0742-04-0rcm-proposed-par-draft.docx
> [2]
> https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0854-06-0rcm-par-proposal-for-privacy.pdf
> [3]
> https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0995-10-0rcm-rcm-sg-agenda.pptx
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>