RE: Security for various IETF services

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Mon, 07 April 2014 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
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 7C61B1A0791; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 BSx1FrIgJ0DR; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E0B1A0799; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [85.158.136.51:65470] by server-3.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id 03/8B-28132-99EB2435; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:04:57 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-49.messagelabs.com!1396883096!21372619!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.35]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.1; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 26009 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2014 15:04:56 -0000
Received: from exht021p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT021P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.35) by server-4.tower-49.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Apr 2014 15:04:56 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.150]) by EXHT021P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.35]) with mapi; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 16:04:56 +0100
From: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
To: <stbryant@cisco.com>, <john-ietf@jck.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 16:04:55 +0100
Subject: RE: Security for various IETF services
Thread-Topic: Security for various IETF services
Thread-Index: Ac9SbUlEL+eMK3RSTFK2HNH59Dqu9wABCvVs
Message-ID: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E779EECA@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <533D8A90.60309@cs.tcd.ie> <533EEF35.7070901@isdg.net> <27993A73-491B-4590-9F37-0C0D369B4C6F@cisco.com> <CAHBU6iuX8Y8VCgkY1Qk+DEPEgN2=DWbNEWVffyVmmP_3qmmmig@mail.gmail.com> <53427277.30707@cisco.com> <B275762E-3A1A-44A3-80BE-67F4C8B115B2@trammell.ch> <53428593.3020707@cs.tcd.ie> <A33A3F1E-8F6D-4BD9-8D1B-B24FBCD74D8D@nominum.com> <DC23F34E807E77F8C4C095C3@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>, <5342B539.6030604@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5342B539.6030604@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UmYdnd6CYVWUnXIC78bnNHwmUsk
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@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: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:05:23 -0000

once you hand security the keys to your organisation, it's no longer your organisation.

I am unsurprised by the increasing speed of security moves here (really, security
policy matters; policy is easy to push. governments do it all the time) and
the increasing slowness of everything else. (it's been twenty years since
RFC1323bis kicked off. Don't hold your breath.)

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn

I was right in warning about DTN. Seems I''m right in warning about this. right?
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant [stbryant@cisco.com]
Sent: 07 April 2014 15:24
To: John C Klensin; Ted Lemon; Stephen Farrell
Cc: Tim Bray; IETF-Discussion; The IESG
Subject: Re: Security for various IETF services

On 07/04/2014 15:02, John C Klensin wrote:
> As to the core proposal, unlike SM, I would like to see each new
> application that someone proposes to be accessible through "secure"
> means only discussed one at a time.
I concur with John.
> My fear of the whole Prepass effort was that it would be used in "we
> approved that, therefore we can and should do this without further
> discussion" arguments. I just thought it would take a few years to get
> to that point.
That was the root of my object to the publication of the Attack RFC.

- Stewart