Re: Address privacy

[Ca By <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:51 AM Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:57 PM Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 28/1/20 00:10, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 5:36 PM Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 26/1/20 18:37, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> >>> Tom Herbert wrote on 26/01/2020 20:16:
>> >>>> It's intuitive
>> >>>> that a higher frequency of address rotation yields more privacy
>> >>>
>> >>> intuitive, but probably inaccurate because of the a priori assumption
>> >>> that privacy is strongly associated with the endpoint identifier.
>> >>
>> >> In many cases, it is: you log in to fb with a given address, and reuse
>> >> that address to do other stuf
>> >>
>> > Yes, that's the "always on" network application that would allow
>> > address tracking and identification at even high frequency of address
>> > change. An exploit based on that is described in section 4.4 of
>> > draft-herbert-ipv6-prefix-address-privacy-00. I believe the only way
>> > to defeat this exploit would be single use (per flow), uncorrelated
>> > address.
>>
>> Agreed. That said, temporary addresses, for obvious reasons mitigates
>> activity correlation over time -- certainly not to the same extent that
>> the paranoid "one address per flow" would.
>>
>
> Fernando,
>
> The rationale for temporary addresses may be obvious, but I don't believe
> anyone has yet quantified the effects. For instance, RFC4941 is thirteen
> years old, is there any evidence that it has materially improved anyone's
> privacy? (I'm not being cynical, but I think it's a fair question).
>

Anecdotally, i would say unequivocally yes at a large scale eyeballs
network, random iid has materially improved security of the host. The
inability to do network scanning is huge.



> One might compare this to the policy of some sys admins that users need to
> change passwords regularly. The rationale is similar, but that practice has
> been most debunked as not improving security and in fact is more of a
> burden to users that providing any real value.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Fernando Gont
>> SI6 Networks
>> e-mail: [e-mail]
>> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>