IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MLS] Stupidest possible message protection

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 03 December 2018 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: mls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C18130E6C for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 13:10:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 41kAM2uUlF2A for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 13:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 773D81294D7 for <mls@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 13:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EAD3300AAC for <mls@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 16:10:18 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 7uuRwHMSLIEp for <mls@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 16:10:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.1.161] (pool-71-178-45-35.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.178.45.35]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CC3130078C; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 16:10:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <B2437354-B775-4EEE-999D-E7BC5CA5EBEA@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_02483F18-A7B0-4EE0-89B3-6B97439F4255"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 16:10:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <D43F3ED4-E2FF-46C1-B10A-0C6169137738@wire.com>
Cc: mls@ietf.org
To: Raphael Robert <raphael=40wire.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <CAL02cgTjD==YgS848sBWEGrBBkNMAtbUXJuV6RrDmak_+Mu6fw@mail.gmail.com> <6369845D-4139-4043-90F8-08AFAD4EE47B@gmail.com> <CAL02cgQFUNYVQHFni9JkwRn7Zo9kL52KyazAuL+YQVFBQT1RHg@mail.gmail.com> <D43F3ED4-E2FF-46C1-B10A-0C6169137738@wire.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/lKEeOE9r-aSEYFkSu-VvcazoaPc>
Subject: Re: [MLS] Stupidest possible message protection
X-BeenThere: mls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Messaging Layer Security <mls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mls>, <mailto:mls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls>, <mailto:mls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 21:10:27 -0000


> On Dec 3, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Raphael Robert <raphael=40wire.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Richard that letting clients choose is a good idea. I think that for the sake of simplicity clients should choose whether to encrypt HS messages or not right at group creation

It is not clear to me how a user would make that choice.  They do not really have much visibility into the consequences of the choice.  So, it would be good for this group to make to choice or provide a concise description of those consequences in language a user might find helpful.

Russ

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status