Re: [Medup] MEDUP Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1
Iraklis Symeonidis <iraklis.symeonidis@uni.lu> Fri, 07 June 2019 10:28 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=054a2dbbf=iraklis.symeonidis@uni.lu>
X-Original-To: medup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: medup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFC41201E9 for <medup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 03:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=uni.lu
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 teVW4cRfwKw0 for <medup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 03:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.uni.lu (smtp1.uni.lu [IPv6:2001:a18:a:c5::d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A749E12003E for <medup@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 03:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uni.lu; i=@uni.lu; q=dns/txt; s=DKIM; t=1559903317; x=1591439317; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=60fNc49HnLu/gxgNuBTWG+ZBIUJwgW7zx8YQUoPRm3Q=; b=BpBjkE1PPD2OzicGwq0iYBCPtWO6szFrnpbu3iBf5LQREpMCx4uDw3dn f8dTg5tzJE0MQGj6uHOe4/UZ4AJ7DJFlfXAB7kyxueXquT2hA4pQVLpFM SdlNOMheC73vl4EYeGjwSA7XlMv0w7v+sNOE/9gfCrfhrU9hZbIs8rCzI 4qEF8h5dHcWSW4BnJBZl+xMcrZLConuh4WFuiDMNiQS9f5yuPV4HIZFhi TLG+q9VRflCrGy59ITk4QyfwrmJ//NXdlR6gpdq6g7e1ZATu30vdja0ZT mRdNzpyZsi9Ud72BKUBXvuuJ0MFlnih0gpDb4MoWUEbOa2J5SAH84dFGt g==;
Authentication-Results: smtp1.uni.lu; spf=Fail smtp.mailfrom=iraklis.symeonidis@uni.lu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) d=uni.lu
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,562,1557180000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="22034428"
From: Iraklis Symeonidis <iraklis.symeonidis@uni.lu>
Message-ID: <211C62E4-B5AA-4183-803E-916C88F24444@uni.lu>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4B54EDE7-2C48-40AE-BB7E-A7884A34ECF9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:28:22 +0200
In-Reply-To: <mailman.84.1559674820.28657.medup@ietf.org>
CC: Iraklis Symeonidis <iraklis.symeonidis@uni.lu>
To: medup@ietf.org
References: <mailman.84.1559674820.28657.medup@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Originating-IP: [10.240.10.17]
X-ClientProxiedBy: Veil2017.uni.lux (2001:a18:a:90::73) To lydia2017.uni.lux (2001:a18:a:90::6f)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/medup/MzOxTIgGxeEO0ghKno59WlU-D64>
Subject: Re: [Medup] MEDUP Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1
X-BeenThere: medup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Missing Elements for Decentralized and Usable Privacy <medup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/medup>, <mailto:medup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/medup/>
List-Post: <mailto:medup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:medup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/medup>, <mailto:medup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 10:28:41 -0000
Hi guys, Can you please add also Borce in the MEDUP mailing list and in all communications that you are forwarding to us? Thanks! Best, Iraklis ———————————————————————————— Post-doctoral researcher SnT / APSIA, University of Luxembourg JFK Building, 29, avenue JF Kennedy, L-1855, Luxembourg (+352) 46 66 44 5594 www.iraklissymeonidis.info ———————————————————————————— > On 4 Jun 2019, at 21:00, medup-request@ietf.org wrote: > > Send MEDUP mailing list submissions to > medup@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/medup > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > medup-request@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > medup-owner@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of MEDUP digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. IETF-104 minutes and materials (Bernie Hoeneisen) > > From: Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch> > Subject: [Medup] IETF-104 minutes and materials > Date: 4 June 2019 at 16:46:07 GMT+2 > To: IETF MEDUP ML <medup@ietf.org> > > > Hi everybody > > During IETF-104 in Prague we had the first MEDUP (non-WG) meeting. > > * The meeting material and recordings can be found on: > https://pep.foundation/docs/ietf/104/medup/ > > * The minutes are pasted below (for your convenience) and can be found on: > https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-104-medup > > Should any corrections be required, please let us know > > > All the best > Bernie et al. > > > -- > > http://ucom.ch/ > Tech Consulting for Internet Technology > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Minutes > ======= > > MEDUP @ IETF-104: > URL: https://pep.foundation/dev/repos/internet-drafts/raw-file/tip/medup/ietf-104/notes-ietf-104-medup-00.txt > > > Revision 00: > ------------ > > MEDUP -- Missing Elements for Decentralized and Usable Privacy > Non-WG meeting @ IETF-104, Prague (Tyrolka room, Thu 2019-03-28, 18:15-19:30) > > * Mailing list: medup@ietf.org; > subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/MEDUP > > * Agenda: > * Opening / Agenda Bashing [chairs] > * Introduction to MEDUP [chairs] > * Privacy Threat Modeling [Iraklis Symeonidis (SnT / uni.lu)] > * The Missing Element in the Room [Gabriele Lenzini (SnT / uni.lu)] > * Introduction to pEp [Hernani] > * Document Status > * draft-birk-pep-03 [Bernie] > * draft-birk-pep-trustwords-03 [Bernie] > * draft-marques-pep-handshake-02 [Bernie] > * draft-marques-pep-rating-01 [Bernie] > * draft-marques-pep-email-02 / > draft-luck-lamps-pep-header-protection-01 [Claudio] > * Open Issues [Bernie, Hernani] > * Next Steps [chairs] > * Open Mic > > (Last change: 2019-03-28 // rev: 08) > > * Slides / Streams: https://pep.foundation/docs/ietf/104/medup/ > > * Minutes > * Opening / Agenda Bashing [chairs] > * Chairs open the meeting including Note Well > * No requests for agenda bashing > > * Introduction to MEDUP [chairs] > * MEDUP is about of enhancements to application protocols for > decentralized usable privacy > * RFC 8280 has identified and documented important principles in such > as Data Minimization, End-to-End and Interoperability in order to > enable access to Human Rights. While (partial) implementations of > these concepts are already available, today's applications widely > lack Privacy support that ordinary users can easily handle. > * In MEDUP these issues are addressed based on Opportunistic Security > (RFC 7435) principles. Updates/usage clarifications to application > level protocols such as email and XMPP are in scope. > * There are other groups doing work in the area, such as HRPC, PEARG, > DINRG > * MEDUP aims go go beyond just principles, i.e., specifications for > Running Code > > * Privacy Threat Modeling [Iraklis Symeonidis (SnT / uni.lu)] > * Different users might have different privacy needs > (journalists/whistleblowers, average users, corporate users) > * There might be different attackers, from local attackers to global > ones (global adversaries) > * Different threats like detectability, linkability, identifiability, > non-repudiation and others are to to be considered > * Also legal frameworks exist which demand for concepts like data > minimization (e.g., GDPR) > > * The Missing Element in the Room [Gabriele Lenzini (SnT/uni.lu)] > * The missing link for privacy to work is actual usability > * The missing element in the room is the average Internet user, which > is not able to use the tools which exist > * Real user has a persona that may be influenced > * Psychology models should be considered (it's not the right approach > to treat users as dummies). > * Q&A > * dkg > * Asks for examples of user interaction work integrated in network > protocols > * Supports statements of the presentation: > * Protocols should consider also the user; at the IETF we have > never traditionally done that > * Doesn't know how to move IETF towards UX considerations > * Expects a lot of pushback within the IETF > * Thinks pushback is wrong, but it is just a fact > * Asks for pointer to existing hooks that we could use out of > places like this > * Gabriele (response to dkg) > * Definitely from experients they have done, there are certain > guidelines > * For example interrupting the user's primary goal, going > somewhere with warnings asking him to a take a decision, has > proven to just bothering the user > * As he wants to reach his primary goal and he doesn't care about > whatever is in the middle > * Condiering UX in the protocal to be made a principle matter of > design > * E.g., move user decisions to policy (e.g., HSTS) are good move; > asking a user whether he/she trusts a web certificate was > unnecessary > * dkg > * Summarizes: the simplest answer is not to offer any explicit > controls to the user if you don’t have to > * Gabriele: > * If you do have to, you have to understand the psychology of the > user, in such a way you’re not imagining him in doing what you > want, but you consider that behavior as part of your system > > * Introduction to pEp [Hernani] > * Aim to make text communications (i.e., email, chat, ...) private by > default > * Most users are unable to use existing encryption tools like GnuPG > (properly) > * Need to fix this usability challenge by automation > * Not just “good”, but easy privacy > * The pEp architecture consists of several building blocks > * Existing RFCs are used whenever available (and usable) > * Some pieces are currently missing (or incomplete) > * pEp intends to document the missing pieces in the IETF > * Running Code: www.pep.software > > * Document Status > > * draft-birk-pep-03 [Bernie] > * Main document > * Handling of crypto is traditionally seen as difficult and hinders > widespread adoption > * Missing pieces for easy decentralized useable privacy > * Items relevant for all applications (email, chat, etc.) > > * draft-birk-pep-trustwords-03 [Bernie] > * IANA registration of Trustwords > * Mapping of hexadecimal stings to natural language words > * Public registration of trustwords in different languages > > * draft-marques-pep-handshake-02 [Bernie] > * Define easy authentication process for communication partners > * Establishing trust relationship based on public keys using > trustwords > > * draft-marques-pep-rating-01 [Bernie] > * Easy understandable representation of Privacy Status > * Description of different rating codes to inform a user on the > Privacy Status > > * draft-marques-pep-email-02 / > draft-luck-lamps-pep-header-protection-01 [Claudio] > * Define missing pieces for email > * Message Format 2 is wrapping messsages to be able to process those > * There are backward compatibility issues to be considered > > * Questions / Discussion > * Sara > * Wants to see what elements need more reasearch and shouldn't > initially be part of standardization process > * Need to look at the distinctions of the layers between pure > protocol specification, user interaction and usability; these > are three distinct areas that in some cases are quite overlapped > and that can possibly get better attention by being unpicked > * There are many protocols that are disguised here, not just email > * Parts that aren’t directly related to protocol specicifiactions > could move out to research > * Interested in a conversation what active research areas are in > place to work on > * Some of these elements could benefit from coming to for example > PEARG and then feed back for changes in the protocols > * It's fascinating work, it's pushing what we do at IETF, very > much, at bit of care in choosing where it gets done could lead > to much better reception of the work > * If it is framed in the right way, we could be more receptive to > it > * Bernie > * Proponents are open to dicuss this > * Invites to send a summary to the MEDUP mailing list for > discission, to better understand how we can address this matter > * dkg > * Fascinating large amount of work that is presented here > * In LAMPS mentioned the course of the deployed base; is the > fundamental problem we struggle here at IETF > * Even if we can get everybody to switch today, I still wanna read > my own mail, which don't adhere to that specification > * And we’re not getting everybody to switch, just because of the > deployed base > * Would be interested in thinking about what the usability issues > are and what the usability approaches are for dealing with > interoperability with non-compliant partners > * While we know what is the right thing to do for generation > [outgoing], and yet we are regularly obliged to consume > [incoming] non-compliant data > * That's a very tough question > * Wants to hear the general ideas about how to address that > * Hernani > * The pEp project has a lot of experience in the field > * Not yet clear how big the problem really is > * Most people aren't encrypting at all > * Far less than 1% actually use encryption at this time > * Interested of documenting these issues in general, maybe in > MEDUP > * Independent of pEp, as this affects all projects in this area, > including pEp or Autocrypt > * Invites particularly also Autocrypt folks to engage with MEDUP > * dkg > * Need to find anyone to catalog the most common ways email is > broken (observations and recommendations to go forward) > * Hernani > * MEDUP discussions should not be just about pEp > * Should be open for other approaches > > * Gabriele > * Rating draft: rating model should be multidimensional (not > linerar) > * Hernani > * pEp is open to change protocols [if there are better ways to > achieve the goals] > > * Open Issues [Bernie, Hernani] > * Will not discuss all issues on the slides due to time constraints > * Slide 1/5: Should the very 1st message (TOFU, no key avaialble for > encryption) be signed? > * What is the added value? > * Does it lead to false peception of security? > * Christian: > * Depends, sometime repudiation is wanted > * There might be a value for signing, e.g., sometimes signing > metadata may be needed (not the message itself) > * Slide 2/5: Trustwords, what is the best charset? > * ASCII 7bits, UTF-8, HTML-like encoding, IDNA, ...? > * Normalization of UTF-8 was proposed on the mailing list (similar > sounding words map to the same UTF-8 representation) > * [Discussion deviated and cut by chair due to time constraints] > > * Next Steps [chairs] > * pEp email I-D will be updated > * pEp key synchronization I-D is planned to be published > * Continue discussion on MEDUP mailing list > * Continue to hold non-WG meetings > * Request BoF when ready > > * Open Mic > > > MEDUP mailing list > MEDUP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/medup
- Re: [Medup] MEDUP Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1 Iraklis Symeonidis