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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

We are talking about the threats in DN. 

I think we should be focusing on the things that are special to DN which is a technology that adds certain properties to a general network. I assume the protection of the general network using the normal techniques is a given.

Passively looking at the contents is about privacy and technical surveillance to intervene more effectively.

Privacy obviously applies to a general network, and I take it as read that we protect against this. However this document is about DN, and I cannot see what the privacy concerns are about the DN specifics.

- Stewart



> On 6 Aug 2020, at 14:05, Eric Gray <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Stewart,
> 
> 	Actually, in addition to the many things that are strange about this entire conversation, your observation about the "thing in the middle" (I mean, let's face it, the "entity" in the middle - EITM? - has been gender-neutral for a long time, given that any human participation in the role could be detected by an idiot) being necessarily _active_ is not quite correct.
> 
> 	It seems to me to be quite reasonable that the middle position could as easily be used to passively collect information for use in other activities - including a few fairly well known attacks.
> 
> --
> Eric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtg-dir <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 8:52 AM
> To: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [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
> 
>