Re: Security for various IETF services

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 09 April 2014 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100A11A029B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 q4EEViqjVn1n for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06321A01C1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.168.69.12] (pool-71-164-185-121.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.164.185.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s39HJRL9025340 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:19:31 -0700
Message-ID: <534580AF.4080602@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:17:35 -0500
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Security for various IETF services
References: <20140409154919.11E6118C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20140409154919.11E6118C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 09 Apr 2014 10:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6S8fzp4Yj9tN2mI2jzt4eyb7QeQ
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:19:36 -0000

On 4/9/2014 10:49 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>      > the way forward is pretty straightforward: Take the S/MIME message
>      > format and graft the PGP web of trust and fingerprint trust models onto
>      > it.
>
> I agree wholly with your prefatory observation, and like your suggested
> solution.


The interesting premise in the suggestion is that a web of trust key 
management model is useful at Internet scale.

I don't understand why anyone believes that.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net