Re: [MLS] multiple devices per user?

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 10:32 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> In the BoF at IETF 101, I expressed my concern about the way that
> multiple devices fits in the architectural requirements.  I'm repeating
> those concerns on-list here in the hopes of raising on-list discussion,
> and trying to flesh them out here in more detail.
>
> I see two use cases that might come under the "multi-device" rubric:
>
>  a) device loss/recovery
>
>  b) actual concurrent use (e.g. laptop + desktop + mobile)
>
> i'll focus here mainly on (b), since i think (a) is a distinct
> situation.
>
> Privacy Considerations
> ----------------------
>
> It's not clear to me that any user has a situation where they *want* to
> indicate to other users of the group which device they're using.


Really? Because this kind of status reporting is actually a reasonably
common
feature of IM systems.


Security Considerations
> -----------------------
>
> When the user has multiple devices, there are two possible approaches:
>
>  0) sharing decryption-capable keys across devices (peers see a single
>     key for each user)
>
>  1) distinct per-device decryption-capable keys (peers see multiple keys
>     per user)
>
> One potential argument is that option (1) might provide
> "transparency" -- or visibility of a key change in the event of an
> adversary who tries to change the keys of a client.  but i don't think
> this argument works.
>

The reason for #1 isn't transparency, it's that there are use cases in
which users want to add a new device without an existing device being
online, and these are incompatible with type #0 designs.



Furthermore, it's not clear what a group conversation participant can
> *do*, security-wise, in the event of recieving such a message from
> another participant -- is this actually a new phone, or is it a wiretap
> injection?  should i ask the user about it?  should i take action?  what
> ction?
>

Generally, I wouldn't expect them to take any action at all. It's a user's
responsibility to ensure that the right number of devices are registered
to their account, just as its common for the number of Web browsers
one has attached to ones Gmail account.


> To avoid UX warning fatigue, i'm wary about introducing more of these
> events than are strictly necessary (scenario (a) above probably
> represents a "necessary" event, sadly, but "i just got a new phone"
> doesn't seem necessary).
>
> And finally, we presumably want any sort of device change to be
> authorized from an already-known device for the same user.


This was not in fact my assumption, for the reason indicated above

-Ekr

>
>