Re: [ippm] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: (with COMMENT)

Nalini J Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com> Mon, 22 May 2017 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1487812EB03 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 May 2017 08:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.611
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=2.309, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.com
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 buUydydjocvC for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 May 2017 08:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonic319-30.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (sonic319-30.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [98.137.66.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D64512EAFF for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 May 2017 08:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1495467408; bh=Oe2mBT/IPqjkI5WfthKOC/Q0OFWRUOQffwIxq8cmnxY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=lyI/4w2OA69n7wG8CVwrSsSiFGEgfyyqP+zisnaJgusX6cGEuNZa7jNlljWpxQ6mBluyOF/JE5Ph0aGXFCoqKc50AOdMdyprbup2/wmr/84mDiPMcYvNpky2EaPZcL3lGf7LNQdwcjLgzTOS9GH12G3C0IpqkAuPJ28XE8DFEvy6IOZzAIelkHPDMI85D7IGp6ZxqDi9tzjxWyPby0MR1/VSHAAkXPloztol2IswQi1DMFfFxL3fVhI1e+go3lZ8OojGlPLXZazHCEJDlxejknjWqxulwdXQeRQl88+/ZI1QeVmSPArU9zw1lKGHtjnMV5fatpeU7jyZiuD6pG2ZaA==
X-YMail-OSG: nDjzmGgVM1mUMyFMZVygnjwstU1TfH6X1Xms8LwwGuoeqCP6Mzs7Qtq30zJcXJ4 d7d8769cz9Qhowra6qLH6gQzYVwQP_YTkU7Uu2dm_and9uka33WZ.b.Zyn0yDnJWswyxL3gLPHZN TL.6HsEQvvTfiEXQE9SwsRCy9NIzYHhFxj.0WdFa7c1iz2vGgB7RYiU9HxMiGThwJGnFqr0RnFEU 2Zjssr3YBQY3cbKEyA3c_P0kXG6iProqFBHTTf_RbtM9cvGaY9yW9.2VEgUS9z_cciYdricMOEyL sk8xX2rw0PJVvDP6nNXAOcmaa2H8BsuMjIsmcy1SVkPIXiLRL08aI1Eggj0iGCvh9Otnm_RQDDc1 qQbJDDxhw57h7p6leC95uoentMI27NZ1gLppmBfogtTIoQSJQEej9dgfxlD1OJSeNXiYOBN363q2 tJkoatCBQfjBAS7mvqclj6rPkgjCy7PJ7mZloGi_qXKH9X_zV1pFGclC43tHm4ylbsZIw_vcbk2_ hB1qaVXagXhtAnGW_io0dC3C5qbtr1c8cHBDkxSoz1HoUr1tORvKLxSGBEvQ8KpfTLjuCokJCluC ZWuHu.ae5zJHlczOs1lYur47tLXCxpAaeA_dxXzO4pRbAuo7wRyGNII63Dw--
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic319.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2017 15:36:48 +0000
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 15:26:46 +0000
From: Nalini J Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Nalini J Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option@ietf.org>, Bill Cerveny <ietf@wjcerveny.com>, "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "acmorton@att.com" <acmorton@att.com>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <922169529.4233696.1495466806431@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <149200885746.15718.798617550888585150.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <149200885746.15718.798617550888585150.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_4233695_1329711182.1495466806423"
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.9679 YahooMailNeo Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/58.0.3029.110 Safari/537.36
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/nC76SpekjBPkzWoM5IQDiT2NShY>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 15:36:50 -0000

Alissa,
Please let me know if you are OK with the proposed change.



>Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: No Objection


>Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option/



>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

>The analysis in Sec 4.2 seems to be missing some considerations. In cases
>where the packet payload is encrypted and the attacker does not have
>access to the keys, the attacker does not in fact have access to the
>entire packet, in which case PDM provides more information than a packet
>without PDM. Also in those cases, it seems like including PDM information
>would generally make a packet stream more susceptible to traffic analysis
>insofar as the timing and sequence information may provide additional
>indicators about the type of application in use, not just the speed of
>the end host.


Are you OK if I do the following:

OLD------ Since PDM passes in the clear, a concern arises as to whether the data can be used to fingerprint the system or somehow obtain information about the contents of the payload.  
 Let us discuss fingerprinting of the end host first. It is possible that seeing the pattern of deltas or the absolute values could give some information as to the speed of the end host - that is, if it is a very fast system or an older, slow device.   This may be useful to the attacker.  However, if the attacker has access to PDM, the attacker also has access to the entire packet and could make such a deduction based merely on the time frames elapsed between packets WITHOUT PDM.  
 As far as deducing the content of the payload, it appears to us that PDM is quite unhelpful in this regard.


New------
Since PDM passes in the clear, a concern arises as to whether the
data can be used to fingerprint the system or somehow obtaininformation about the contents of the payload.  
Let us discuss fingerprinting of the end host first. It is possiblethat seeing the pattern of deltas or the absolute values could givesome information as to the speed of the end host - that is, if it isa very fast system or an older, slow device.   This may be useful tothe attacker.  However, if the attacker has access to PDM, theattacker also has access to the entire packet and could make such adeduction based merely on the time frames elapsed between packetsWITHOUT PDM.  
As far as deducing the content of the payload, it is conceivablethat an attacker could attempt to deduce the type of application inuse by noting the server time and payload length.   Having said that,some encryption algorithms attempt to obfuscate the packet lengthto avoid just such vulnerabilities.  In the future, encryption algorithmsmay wish to obfuscate the server time as well.