RE: Security for various IETF services

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Mon, 07 April 2014 01:06 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 258CB1A055D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 Njwfq70VlFst for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED391A05E5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.245.230.131:61870] by server-10.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id F5/3E-16608-01AF1435; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 01:06:24 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-78.messagelabs.com!1396832784!30614184!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.39]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.1; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 14673 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2014 01:06:24 -0000
Received: from exht012p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.39) by server-12.tower-78.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Apr 2014 01:06:24 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.150]) by EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.39]) with mapi; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 02:06:23 +0100
From: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
To: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>, <huitema@microsoft.com>, <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 02:05:43 +0100
Subject: RE: Security for various IETF services
Thread-Topic: Security for various IETF services
Thread-Index: AQHPT1jcTXDUfJOah0OH2ltCrxPwgZsEwa4AgAB5wwCAAATOIIAAE6e/gAAIaO4=
Message-ID: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E779EEC6@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <533D8A90.60309@cs.tcd.ie> <53417832.90405@cs.tcd.ie> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1404061602580.14892@egate.xpasc.com>, <ecabb0a4080548d99ab083c0ff0c27ee@BLUPR03MB424.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>, <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E779EEC5@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E779EEC5@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
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/kmXGbKlqrovjXxatStZm-vQAxRA
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 01:06:35 -0000

to enlarge on that:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/perpass.html
no charter

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/perpass
not found

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of l.wood@surrey.ac.uk [l.wood@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: 07 April 2014 01:35
To: huitema@microsoft.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Security for various IETF services

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/perpass/
that's a lot of drafts.

and yet perpass is still not a WG with formal process and charter? Odd, that.

Knee-jerk reactions are not good things.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Huitema [huitema@microsoft.com]
Sent: 07 April 2014 00:30
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Security for various IETF services

> I agree with those who've said a threat analysis is needed before
> deciding access is limited to TLS or other secure alternative.

But we have that threat analysis, and the recommended mitigation is precisely "encrypt everything." The "pervasive monitoring" threat is analyzed by a number of perpass drafts, and Stephen has merely followed the conclusions of that analysis. There is no need to repeat that analysis for each and every tool that the IETF produces, and there is indeed a need for the IETF as a whole to "lead by example."

-- Christian Huitema