Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and what the IETF could do
Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> Tue, 02 September 2014 19:47 UTC
Return-Path: <leo@vegoda.org>
X-Original-To: endymail@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: endymail@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35161A887F
for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 H4Ly_9Nu2k_r for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D04871A8862
for <endymail@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id k14so7298144wgh.28
for <endymail@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references
:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
:user-agent;
bh=5eHXqEQEBdAi02WN7fQLh0XqL1vUPD2rKXyChcZn5Fo=;
b=DtuHPGM8TMNhO1OfXhFlornzyYs+1T7ANs7LMsZCjI+4LvpyMSk3GWm/nExxtvWx16
TcoV38Lm7kTSwfVvypJ1rpQynldv/+3m0LVhqlGlCKc1wMQJLhTgRxOwKKmhI4dwfSg1
SkGNchLa53B4XmWwLXILIBOZ+x4zoKA1jfoDPmcYuPYvc0eXvlz0OHpYUBLzJpr/JEiu
Kyz8Kuxz57Sgf47vL1w8SRhV1bKg6Kp8ETZfXK2k4nhJ4jdkj7OynPTYhQon1sYKdMz4
9v/z2qj2SBrt6TRdMmfU2zRukX1X0jcnkAHyB0tJSR1cSMO9ppYnd+IgJsUCtibE31tc
J4MQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmnUKuuGkYCUvvUy6wwm6ZTI5vEs3/etF3iB8aib+jieIdhIuB8V7IC/Df9LAeGEy0bt+Ly
X-Received: by 10.194.60.240 with SMTP id k16mr4966829wjr.109.1409687231467;
Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vegoda.org (v6only.vegoda.org. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:26:0:1])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h6sm11495149wjb.33.2014.09.02.12.47.09
for <multiple recipients>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 20:47:06 +0100
From: Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <20140902194706.GC8044@vegoda.org>
References: <CAHBU6iuxfqs9RszSaJLaTV_obKBCJ9Pzii+t9XANN3q+bJm-3Q@mail.gmail.com>
<878um3prio.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
<cddbc815-a98a-48e5-8dea-c3d8a68ca4d9@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
<87y4u2laqh.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
<20140902114217.lp_a_yD8%sdaoden@yandex.com>
<20140902160206.GA7900@vegoda.org> <5405EEB8.1060107@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5405EEB8.1060107@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/endymail/CvMJEhuwxrtSpmCE0S4hJ8lmGE8
Cc: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>, Steffen Nurpmeso <sdaoden@yandex.com>,
Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, endymail@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and what the IETF could do
X-BeenThere: endymail@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <endymail.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/endymail>,
<mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/endymail/>
List-Post: <mailto:endymail@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/endymail>,
<mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:47:18 -0000
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:22:16PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > I'm not quite sure I'm reading this correctly, but just in > case... > > On 02/09/14 17:02, Leo Vegoda wrote: > > Handing out cryptographic identity certificates or similar to people > > who do not understand the risks or benefits and do not have a > > suitable key management framework doesn't seem a great idea to me. > > If this list concludes that an Internet-scale key management > framework is required where all key holders are strongly > authenticated before they get any functional benefit, then > that makes life easy - we have 20+ years of evidence that > there's no point in bothering to try construct that;-) That's not quite what I meant. What I meant is that if there is an authority handing out certificates then it should do so in a responsible way. Cryptographic certificates are sufficiently different from photographic identity documents that pre-existing assumptions need to be changed to avoid disappointment. This does not need to be hierarchical but it does need some infrastructure support and either some really outstandingly good user interface design or education. If users receive encrypted e-mail and then loose the corresponding private key then they loose the ability to read old messages. People working for organizations handing out X.509 certificates for S/MIME use get training and their keys might well be escrowed. But ordinary individuals are unlikely to get training and they do expect to be able to read old e-mails. I think this is the sort of basic usability issue that requires some kind of user friendly key management. Whether it needs to be Internet-scale - well I don't know - but it needs to be good enough that the key is reasonably secure if a laptop or tablet is lost or stolen. I expect that in most cases strong authentication is not required but people will need some kind of mechanism for evaluating how much trust to assign a new key they have not seen before and that will also require some kind of education or another superb user interface. Most people will be new to cryptography and will need some help. Leo
- [Endymail] Another view of the problem and what t… Tim Bray
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Werner Koch
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Tim Bray
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Werner Koch
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Werner Koch
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Steffen Nurpmeso
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Leo Vegoda
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Leo Vegoda
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Adam Caudill
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Tim Bray
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Werner Koch
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Werner Koch
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Michael Kjörling
- Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and wh… Leo Vegoda