IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-privacy] "Opportunistic encryption" and a need for a definition

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143AD1AE0D8 for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:26:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.026
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.026 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_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=unavailable
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 Y2pe-YZhKJDL for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:26:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2761AE0A2 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:26:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1821; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384971989; x=1386181589; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=/lP20zhqskvdO8mtFFImSPK5GHtWm0AHRpLtbHpEPRg=; b=Uw+nHKX/hTne1od59PucVQxHzMkzxDvpb3VP9fknRI1daY77orgJsvMh 6KAJe1mg3CCNvWLRx81dSClRvt/XdJkBfb7JTCPaP/MaYoNwjwK+FRVEv Yk6CqpaYR4W8CCWiQlM7kU1TgQePnYdTJcJH/rk1LmSIMPMwPMUCExmuQ M=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,738,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="283403427"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2013 18:26:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAKIQSHi029925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:26:28 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.122]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:26:28 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Thread-Topic: [ietf-privacy] "Opportunistic encryption" and a need for a definition
Thread-Index: AQHO5QqIlPLXCAhwuECt42ZxlpPoqpossNkAgAACFACAAAToAIAAANAAgAAFAwCAAAD7gIACF+eA
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:26:27 +0000
Message-ID: <E3A1EEC1-308A-49CF-89E8-942056A6AD75@cisco.com>
References: <20131119093343.GA9282@nic.fr> <528B31B4.5050005@cisco.com> <20131119094626.GA11078@nic.fr> <528B3790.2020302@cs.tcd.ie> <20131119100653.GA14012@nic.fr> <528B3C72.10604@cisco.com> <20131119102821.GA17434@nic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20131119102821.GA17434@nic.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.121]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6EE70BBE-E9E6-4E9D-BD0E-B492F1665D22"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<ietf-privacy@ietf.org>" <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] "Opportunistic encryption" and a need for a definition
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:26:46 -0000

On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:28 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:24:50AM +0100,
> Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote 
> a message of 20 lines which said:
> 
>> OE may have other very valid uses 
> 
> The problem is not with the concept, it is with the
> words. "opportunistic encryption" is used in many places but poorly
> defined and many fights erupt because people do not actually
> understand the same thing when they hear "opportunistic encryption".
> 
> What I suggest is to stop using this terme and instead to say:
> 
> 1) "Encryption on demand" Encryption without a peer-specific
> arrangement. This is the meaning used in RFC 4322. Can be safe.

I believe that this is what 4322 calls an "opportunistic tunnel" as compared to a "configured tunnel". Is there a reason to call it something else? 

> 2) "Encryption without authentication". This is the meaning used in RFC
> 5386. Safe only against a purely passive attacker.
> 
> 3) "Encryption with a fallback" (to unencrypted mode). This is the
> Wikipedia definition. Certainly unsafe.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email