Re: [MLS] Use Cases for avoiding Forward Secrecy

Dave Cridland <> Fri, 02 March 2018 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35659124239 for <>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:18:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jU8UOG2Icnb2 for <>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8801D12025C for <>; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q69so15213197lfi.10 for <>; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:18:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tVfPLmmdp5QWh+tJe4qzhBAzvRNS4daph6oBBBZt5+k=; b=YilRls+L9VhzfmKfzGTiHzyTJZtT27PyC4+w5j0k+0If2/mHDfQO3g+p5IgOAmPAUT /qrtM6/ejLXEV17OXWRguZ/OKsHOZgCdWdobgxARTCLbbomlK5J6hYGTItT4FHLkOs7k If/zuT+KMlhoF3i3IMXoRpFvXZjuV8Izu4n24=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tVfPLmmdp5QWh+tJe4qzhBAzvRNS4daph6oBBBZt5+k=; b=Wu+4YgMbuxEXoIYxv9ljikbLAMjCZO6g2yLm3KUh3B6jFZE7o/7SD8HgDV6B7qJnH3 rtrLXePpmjXsAOrVFjOnCx1Vs+99boUuqi41cDROabSOkqTnY0idoYhai1Wo4FQCkGy7 GXZ0U13vdb1VBH861yPYEnjKiuEsqzRQXUR7dWHzpk61pcgCJepFw8DfGb9mlK43Okrz a0wZWYF0LkJgErHdYXM4v1uxHYzPQ40laIJsEmxKX2/QVcd6q98o152QP3X27kUIyuDp g8VTxbSiWtSr8Y5hGtyp+ocryWZrRTar5Q8c/C+dLA5UNdoOKs/jl8wCPrwdbU4Oog1E rEnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDNbrXNU5Xc/YoM2mAzyGGSKNNCSwt4/N8bSI0fPTvuOeoLvrqS 849AoKQccWcHZ7irUi78hn3Js+v9Bp/zI8pebEPN84QB
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvmc9U4kJyEBO1R7sZCCdT2C2X9Tg7cGWtYTRY9Jc59rbrKGEcuxm6WpHMsZZb2JdsNtdjezGkb2MDpcozmBtw=
X-Received: by with SMTP id 10mr5118531ljn.8.1520025508799; Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:18:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:18:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Dave Cridland <>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 21:18:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Cc: Nadim Kobeissi <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MLS] Use Cases for avoiding Forward Secrecy
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Messaging Layer Security <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 21:18:32 -0000

On 2 March 2018 at 21:04, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 02/03/18 20:27, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> To be absolutely clear, I'm not a big fan of SAKKE and I think it's
>> entirely unsuitable for the consumer in any form. Consumers generally
>> benefit from FS, and SAKKE's mandatory escrow is just plain wrong in
>> that setting.
> I agree with you about mikke-sakke and mandatory key escrow in general.
> (As does the IETF, in RFC 1984/BCP 200.)
> As a non-nit: I'd much prefer we consider people and not "consumers,"
> but no need to go there as part of this thread - I know what you meant
> when saying "consumer" above and it's ok in context.

I'm using that term quite deliberately, I'm afraid.

"Consumers" are not the same as "People" - People act in roles, and
one such role is as a consumer. Happy to use whatever terms you like,
but not conflicting ones. "People", in general, might find a legally
recognisable record of their communications quite useful at times.

> However, I do hope
> work on MLS does not assume the existence of a major "mothership" - if
> it did, then that'd be bad IMO, regardless of whether a mothership is
> an employer, government or commercial service provider. (Allowing for
> the existence of such entities is ok IMO, requiring them is not.)

Right, totally agree.

I think it's relatively simple to ensure that a person cannot have a
"mothership", as you put it, imposed upon them without their
knowledge, and I think that's an entirely sane goal. (In fact, I think
it's met by the current drafts, which is why I'm not arguing for it).