IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: The "nomap" Network Identifier Suffix

Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@microsoft.com>
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 D182D1A82E2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:35:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 fSuwpu1a8Rer for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0206.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3A41AE0DC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLUPR03CA035.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.30.28) by BLUPR03MB279.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.213.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.820.5; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 02:35:10 +0000
Received: from BN1BFFO11FD035.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c10::1:155) by BLUPR03CA035.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:879::28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.825.14 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 02:35:10 +0000
Received: from mail.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BN1BFFO11FD035.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.58.144.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.825.6 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 02:35:10 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.174]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.002; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 02:34:29 +0000
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Eric Burger <eburger@cs.georgetown.edu>
Subject: RE: The "nomap" Network Identifier Suffix
Thread-Topic: The "nomap" Network Identifier Suffix
Thread-Index: AQHO6jlEfr5utp63W0maAfABusvw5Jo3arwAgACuPICAAEMzgA==
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 02:34:28 +0000
Message-ID: <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA2FBC2B0C@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <i9n799hrr1vfp4bobt9tc55rn1aip73rts@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <3D4E298A-FE87-4FD1-BCC2-EF33E7BD4D99@cs.georgetown.edu> <B15E89D0-3C72-4A5C-9838-BBF305D92A59@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <B15E89D0-3C72-4A5C-9838-BBF305D92A59@mnot.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(199002)(189002)(51856001)(74366001)(2171001)(2656002)(87936001)(81542001)(50986001)(54356001)(53806001)(33656001)(81342001)(46102001)(81816001)(56776001)(56816003)(76786001)(76482001)(55846006)(85306002)(81686001)(6806004)(83072001)(47776003)(74706001)(20776003)(80976001)(74876001)(4396001)(44976005)(80022001)(50466002)(59766001)(83322001)(66066001)(65816001)(77982001)(63696002)(79102001)(77096001)(74662001)(47736001)(23746002)(74502001)(54316002)(47976001)(47446002)(87266001)(76796001)(31966008)(69226001)(49866001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR03MB279; H:mail.microsoft.com; CLIP:131.107.125.37; FPR:; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 004395A01C
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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, 27 Nov 2013 02:35:14 -0000

> Separate from the issues surrounding enforcing declared policy, putting metadata into identifiers seems like a bad practice. 

True. And it is also a very ineffective way to get privacy. If you want to not be tracked, you should at a minimum randomize the SSID, and probably the Wi-Fi MAC address as well. Of course, that's a bit inconvenient today, because the user is in the loop, and has to agree to connect to the SSID, and enter the security key. But it can in theory be solved. For example, if the SSID encrypts something like "MyRealSSID+someRandomNumber" with a known key, the modified WiFi client could automatically decrypt it. Needs work, but seems more robust than relying on the good will of strangers.

-- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email