Re: [hrpc] hrpc session at IETF98

"Giovane C. M. Moura" <giovane.moura@sidn.nl> Fri, 24 February 2017 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <giovane.moura@sidn.nl>
X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F01921296CD for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:11:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sidn.nl
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 0ixbe0_yt60a for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:11:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from arn2-kamx.sidn.nl (kamx.sidn.nl [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3F6B129579 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:11:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=sidn.nl; s=sidn-nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip:x-clientproxiedby; bh=8C6YfAzsvryQDKsbzHZbB9AbIi/n93s6vIzOs3MVK4o=; b=bpZr69Fo+so5cFUq67bku61exuBzS1BFwLjISSZPmbsevX3SnVQ4mhNeRdzJ3/rP+0KHir0kHA+cw5/tynwV+S8FjOaSzmSjXd/ZElYrd4txMHJ91hDNFmnC8+GgzeactyIzBZI4dBOAo54oG+TlCZ8IEtJP/VHN+eC4UUZB1gJuSRFrnPFY9hPlRO/JWzzqgr0QoKUvFaNO/lbWuYUCEITLCpdgN+nXMyo/IXtRyqyWV+id/dMZSkCdi4n81junG6kp61kOr7CWUdL3DHDDf4iWorzbfEMqnFij0k4MfiKN9w3/QSvUB8/QW0ZOKndUHaVXb0Uvnt9HNVNs8SNVXQ==
Received: from ka-mbx01.SIDN.local ([192.168.2.177]) by arn2-kamx.sidn.nl with ESMTP id v1ODBaGh026749-v1ODBaGj026749 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=CAFAIL) for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:11:36 +0100
Received: from [94.198.159.134] (94.198.159.134) by ka-mbx01.SIDN.local (192.168.2.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:11:35 +0100
To: hrpc@irtf.org
References: <df655c27-0b1b-79d1-97c5-14401507d065@article19.org>
From: "Giovane C. M. Moura" <giovane.moura@sidn.nl>
Message-ID: <b6053ce6-3a3f-e84d-754b-6ae1fb941637@sidn.nl>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:11:35 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <df655c27-0b1b-79d1-97c5-14401507d065@article19.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [94.198.159.134]
X-ClientProxiedBy: ka-hubcasn02.SIDN.local (192.168.2.172) To ka-mbx01.SIDN.local (192.168.2.177)
X-FEAS-SPF: 2 / 2, ip=94.198.159.134, helo=, mailFrom=giovane.moura@sidn.nl, headerFrom=giovane.moura@sidn.nl
Authentication-Results: arn2-kamx.sidn.nl; spf=pass (sidn.nl: domain of giovane.moura@sidn.nl designates 94.198.159.134 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=giovane.moura@sidn.nl
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/cbBpYh3eN_-xt-jjV4EiTHVIYgU>
Subject: Re: [hrpc] hrpc session at IETF98
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "niels@article19.org" <hrpc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:11:40 -0000

Hi Niels,


> Do people have other points for the agenda they would like to suggest?
> Or speaker for the current or next session? New drafts? Discussion topics?

We have a report that may be in the interest of the WG.
We show how the hosting industry has reacted to efforts of the
community/industry to make encryption easier.

We show that once costs and complexity are removed, big players are
prone to deploy, in bulk, encryption across large number of sites,
enabling encryption in sites and domains that would otherwise be left
behind. The lessons learned can be also be generalized to other
security-related issues.

(I have also submitted this to MAPRG,but the agenda is still being defined).

Title: No domain left behind: is Let's Encrypt democratizing encryption?

Full paper at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03005 PDF:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03005v1

Summary: The 2013 National Security Agency revelations of pervasive
monitoring have lead to an "encryption rush" across the computer and
Internet industry. To push back against massive surveillance and protect
users privacy, vendors, hosting and cloud providers have widely deployed
encryption on their hardware, communication links, and applications. As
a consequence, the most of web traffic nowadays is encrypted. However,
there is still a significant part of Internet traffic that is not
encrypted. It has been argued that both costs and complexity associated
with obtaining and deploying X.509 certificates are major barriers for
widespread encryption, since these certificates are required to
established encrypted connections. To address these issues, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, and the University
of Michigan have set up Let's Encrypt (LE), a certificate authority that
provides both free X.509 certificates and software that automates the
deployment of these certificates. In this paper, we investigate if LE
has been successful in democratizing encryption: we analyze certificate
issuance in the first year of LE and show from various perspectives that
LE adoption has an upward trend and it is in fact being successful in
covering the lower-cost end of the hosting market.

/giovane