Re: [Detnet] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-security-10

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 07 August 2020 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9E43A0D1E; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Soq7d2Ic8PH0; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 928D53A0CE5; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 077HAQRY026233; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:10:26 +0100
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBACB22048; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:10:25 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B635222050; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:10:25 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([84.51.134.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 077HANMQ025776 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:10:25 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Stewart Bryant' <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-security.all@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org
References: <159618704596.337.11731016034191108207@ietfa.amsl.com> <D9587519-FCD7-4046-AAF8-97E619D288C3@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D9587519-FCD7-4046-AAF8-97E619D288C3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 18:10:22 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <015c01d66cdd$a3d4c1d0$eb7e4570$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGCdWQxKrYa/p1Ba0bGy/YlLOCBxgGz9aCQqccuFOA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.51.134.26
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25590.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.617-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--12.617-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25590.001
X-TMASE-Result: 10--12.617300-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +f/wAVSGjuiWfDtBOz4q23FPUrVDm6jtAamcV4T1THKnRvssirgAK0eq pHxJHwIREn8iFKM3i+yloCYfBDnps1yYD+e8/Tt9gq+cWtkrZSEPDxHKtFPenAg2kgWdt3qa9Vl GBjCDnciASgF9Ye4nATbwcejvg09UdUjvP9Y3R6DM1jffIgQXhq1ZGUKR0YgsN4F660hFicnS7l 9oY/zO1DsXdJxSdw7HPDCfAql9pCZkM/tzIvvHzxlJRfzNw8afTJDl9FKHbrkrxUs8Nw/2fs4yY pGyhQEu+WwY2xkyfqgAqYXAeIy++bi4ZnD4WFBXx3W4Ij8bGCqnDUTKscqejpsoi2XrUn/JjcFm PipjlBsMyrfP9j+C1d934/rDAK3zhG2qikEpQGWVjThQ0bwDB/iWrri8TewOnKj4NBKpA3qiduX Ep51ObPsZIkP8qlW2
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/EsQAG__yDuNoAUOGspi_7OIC0hI>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-security-10
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 17:10:32 -0000

I can't decide whether to get into this or not 😊

My review said, "It would be nice to avoid," not, "You must avoid."
The review is principally for the AD, and they will tell you whether you need to action this.
I made a constructive suggestion of an alternative phrase, but you are allowed to choose others.

The thing about the term "man-in-the-middle" is not that it is directly making a specific man appear evil, it is that it associates the word "man" with the concept "evil" and therefore subtly changes the long-term perception of "man". There is, in fact, nothing about this type of attack that is specific to a man, and not all attackers are men, nor are all men attackers.

This is a minor issue for me, and (to some extent) I wanted to experiment with draft-knodel-terminology to see what reaction it would get if the changes it suggests were made as a request rather than as an order.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> 
Sent: 06 August 2020 13:52
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-detnet-security.all@ietf.org; detnet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-security-10


> ---
> 
> It would be nice to avoid the term "man-in-the-middle" (and coresponding
> "MITM") in favour of the term "on-path attacker". It is less problematic
> as a term, and no less accurate.
> 
> Although "man-in-the-middle" is well established, I think you could
> easily avoid it and if you feel necessary you could use "An on-path
> attacker (formerly known as a man-in-the-middle) ..."

I sort of understand why you want to change MITM, although given that the man you have in mind is evil I am not sure whether it is that objectionable in this context. However I am not sure on-path is the right term. MITM normally implies an entity that can modify traffic in flight, whereas an on path attacker may simply be an observer.

Maybe AITM (attacker ....) would be a better gender neutral term.

Stewart