IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 29 January 2020 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B042F12012C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:44:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 DqbGnQtrsXC0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:44:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (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 EA7DF1200DF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:44:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id f5so13639919ilq.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:44:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MlOIE8W4lJaMY86lclV2WIxy3e2CdSladwlJqK8MlKU=; b=o9NgUcuyZXvj3xmRXypsGV+ajlFu3JY7eDzK/jQHn8hE/ihJuXWNOZvYaP22NwGKoh MX7krsod+GPKcTz4VszA/nbylvG4T2iirJc35CSLk8kGU9C5dNhx5H+Y/kfpv490c6o4 4acf1idFnncBVW3kGh89WumOyGvIZ/PU1wvldwT/GQyaq/2FCj0WzhILXtu1SclShYK9 RIpQxWnGaKaFfzmFgDTID16aXtC2s9fFbUZioahiyQE+YE3V0kgwmQVorg1l+RV9rw6u CeWzS656NBbkMH2MWZNzo4vWemvzYSWV959lUxpd6oVY2MqqJcXkZEKGVcogNHyNM/nc 9APA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MlOIE8W4lJaMY86lclV2WIxy3e2CdSladwlJqK8MlKU=; b=aLo4r5SQTWtsCNS2L7l8P4HthJBWHnChyGPyRBHW6qx02CMhCdlA16B7aXEpz4Lc2k qTY6ApP6nLhGb5d7jVHf1a1clR/rMpLf9MWSSvZRGL2yPNuS7epFDVWOwT9ZWKGp3vSo k8mbxr6F1vMtMolXY7DtJ0AdZyZ9eE5PBNjkPChJ9L9JeN3f8b5ceNEnUief2HBuDMwF jJKiabL62362TAUNv7o9uizzeGjQZnpmhhlf3CNsZx0on3+mVbehG6zRxjfhi0c+5v5H Xy9c7ZdUjMjldS0Mexkm4lbIZzUB4PbQsZzbD7nU/m+vZtl735s9b3LjRzsgip23wsU5 6W8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVjm2/kf8VrZWqM4u5Ln62hhXVyYeFiuyzVpYovs7Gh1D4xShTH BBgeeoNN22sLlFCyVmWc0nKh0VSeeX+kWV1T1ciw5Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzCpFt/EIFVfMGOuMg9nMN/VQefUHnB9eS6w4AGeuDh6eAOGcA2QuUQfwXxwY4cmvKO96oecT8TwqxGrbLYRJg=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:ca82:: with SMTP id t2mr24523307ilo.242.1580298251015; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 03:44:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKD1Yr11_SSUkCBuQ3-h+eRg0LPZQdhe+h7f0YZy9TiyRWj6mw@mail.gmail.com> <751D59E0-F60B-4FE1-840F-3FEAB82F618F@huitema.net> <c058863d-9e29-3ddb-a020-0ebadef26ad4@si6networks.com> <CABNhwV0KsKN7LQY2D-BJkCtvB40oZCT65EmOCr0oE56c9g7-aQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr05GqFr1r018qHZev8SB6Gd=zm_45TtuShQH_5PVkXpKw@mail.gmail.com> <56BD2286-D761-44EF-812B-82BAFB380992@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <56BD2286-D761-44EF-812B-82BAFB380992@employees.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 20:43:58 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr23BOEQztLyxu8BF4ivVCmX-Aspv6XfAMUHNR=iDp7uKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e483d6059d45db8d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZZhSDWjyu1qd94T5n67J8GJSUd0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:44:14 -0000

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:28 PM <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> So, are you saying that using temporary addresses does not leak the habits
> of employees?
>

I'm saying using temporary addresses makes a number of attacks, including
cross-site tracking, more difficult, infeasible, or defeatable by the
employee or IT admin. If you believe that to be false, you can always try
to see if you can get consensus on a document that says that privacy
addresses are not useful and declares RFC 4941 historic. :-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email