IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnssd] Security through Obscurity

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 01 August 2014 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044DF1A8BB0 for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 06:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.653
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 sNAgORkGFwE8 for <dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 06:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E1D1A0B06 for <dnssd@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 06:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.249.16]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93CDF220B2; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 09:15:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97591CA0F3; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 02:31:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Albrecht, Harald" <harald.albrecht@siemens.com>
In-reply-to: <E36F274013087B4EA05E08EB503750390BEDE8DF@DEFTHW99EK5MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
References: <0644A943-80B9-42E0-BF82-3E1113710FA2@gmail.com> <20E4ED19-12BD-45D4-B690-8629B552B23B@gmail.com> <0E0BC226-E68E-4BC2-99EA-AFF1AF96A5EC@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|faec94f4ff05bea449f9614b93dae254q6NE8Q03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|0E0BC226-E68E-4BC2-99EA-AFF1AF96A5EC@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <E6F68BE4-7094-45AA-ADD9-4B88BBC87921@gmail.com> <8465FD60-84CD-41B3-BBE3-1BDB52DF0DDB@hp.com> <364AAF85-5FB4-4828-A5A4-11160E747BC9@gmail.com> <24377.1406225491@sandelman.ca> <3949.1406228928@sandelman.ca> <E36F274013087B4EA05E08EB503750390BEDE8DF@DEFTHW99EK5MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
Comments: In-reply-to "Albrecht, Harald" <harald.albrecht@siemens.com> message dated "Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:21:15 -0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 02:31:05 -0400
Message-ID: <18172.1406874665@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/zGSXlk7bCydE-QT4zkz5r6EPniU
Cc: "dnssd@ietf.org" <dnssd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Security through Obscurity
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnssd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:16:08 -0000

I agree that the three printer example is contrived.

Albrecht, Harald <harald.albrecht@siemens.com> wrote:
    >> Von: dnssd [mailto:dnssd-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Michael
    >> Richardson Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2014 21:09 Cc:
    >> dnssd@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [dnssd] Security through Obscurity
    >> 
    >> Three printers on the floor.  One is reporting it is broken, so broken
    >> that you can't do much more than see that it exists.  If the IP(v6)
    >> address is predictable, and related in some way to the EUI-64, then
    >> you can find the right unit.  The printer has little privacy concerns,
    >> seldom visits internet cafes, and is never found it airport lounges.

    > In which form do the reporting come in? I would assume that these
    > printers have some labels sticking on them that identify them in a more
    > human-friendly way? Or am I wrong here and missing something? I'm
    > trying to figure out how the reporting process and troubleshooting
    > process will benefit from pre-assigned static LLAs, but I have problems
    > doing so.

    > By the way -- my home printer has global IPv6 addresses (yes, it has
    > two as Deutsche Telekom assigns temporary PA prefixes). But it has a
    > snuggly firewall in front of it so it is of no concern to me; this
    > printer can't be reached from the outside. These two additional GUAs
    > don't eat up significantly resources, so why do I need to bother? I'm
    > using ULA and LLA internally, so that's what I'm caring about. The GUAs
    > aren't bad in any way ... unless there is general suspicion that GUAs
    > are bad in any case...?

    > With best regards, Harald



-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email