IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Mandatory confidentiality for ntpv5

Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 20 October 2021 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30B13A0A71 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4swXhuu6QGGI for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (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 C95BF3A0A69 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id t2so35950wrb.8 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version; bh=CGmUaqphEVnkqT7FmYckp3kC6IA/eE4OySiZ0CvL1Ig=; b=keNqbnAcuW9e5VyM1qndYT5NyVemo9JoNLM/JOkkxcsevPzjxUxSEcuTg0nhiwU+XN 0puIpghYt8hE25rd+peen+KbGlIv7HXk10Y1eHtFlzEOLNpOT+iJ4XUQKhdIhCtFzltV rlgmx2PDm8B7sWLcRKbQBRTSBbsLhluAvis8a+3bdA8F9v65zZp+tzawD9w7jYiQmngU qTJXXpwQIfaBfQmzkL0NNsLeCIh0lnPycIYLOke1qkZRnHlttmEv5AW1L7jK9G0Ak602 +wFc4SQpO9mXP45PJqHL1nasyP7LE24Gr+QT0edfIHz6L0RbbgQrb0zcambNcSP1mYIW qZ7w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=CGmUaqphEVnkqT7FmYckp3kC6IA/eE4OySiZ0CvL1Ig=; b=y4SoISaCgUUv6HGGvvN33qMav2RRuLBJMh1l+kAjL7xWJayYvqqP9g0C35nOy2x6O4 cNXjWUIUHAErxhQLT6HAlD+vWwMb7eDji5bBvkIea5TvsEPLsVtuPsN8jiqo6bDCWh2x 48eLM9bbtZ0IVbTZ3Qt+pcR07MF30njw3TCmxkB7tA3/eJFdCF5p3oqGEtJWI6ooTyIW ykA+96swwbST1T9YtxlJKHjuSQ+78vjPcLcFnnOLHxEvmSy/omBO5qDQqE59YZ30RgPn XVZ2ksArI0pvWHOpAmv29iXuW5FVT71ECzQf6WGjlw3rZgPyXs2KBtXEDI07bKPyKcSw kbow==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531lO6K9gFFfHsYrRWTzDaCl0GsRICURRJGuVRKqDXFzTkQstl0u e7pvJoQOlrQ4pWMWO56EgTY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWBZAMjqkcW7zFaQ9+apexvlMWCz4tJwQEzIYRQsI0eDBnwuEb9eElcxvr0xFnzMMOr24LvQ==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e584:: with SMTP id l4mr554929wrm.173.1634750198572; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.111.24] (p200300d17f2a9700d44ec6b6e7de4d18.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:d1:7f2a:9700:d44e:c6b6:e7de:4d18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p18sm2653209wrt.54.2021.10.20.10.16.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 19:16:35 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5818)
Message-ID: <D6E8E0F4-C5C7-4C83-AB10-F45761578B76@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211015194128.5A90228C0F3@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
References: <20211015194128.5A90228C0F3@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/GU4pteFZdumXYZhEYfAVsyh0hfk>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Mandatory confidentiality for ntpv5
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 17:16:58 -0000


On 15 Oct 2021, at 21:41, Hal Murray wrote:

> james.ietf@gmail.com said:
>> Perhaps you can elaborate why you think confidentiality in NTP is a bad
>> idea?
>
> Is it going to do any good?
>
> There is/was a draft on client data minimization.  What is happening with that?
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization
>
> After you have minimized things, what is left to hide with encryption?
>
> Maybe we should encrypt everything so that we don't waste time discussing
> whether we need to encrypt everything.
>
Maybe this is not a bad idea. NTS already has the capability to encrypt content.
> -------
>
> We need something like a version field in order for a server to be able to
> support multiple versions on the same port number.  That allows a fraction of
> a bit for client tracking, probably closer to a whole bit for early adopters
> when the version is changing.
>
> --------
>
> I'm chasing buggy clients that send bursts of requests to pool servers.  It
> would be convenient to have the name and version of the NTP package that
> generated the packet inside the packet where I can see it.  :)
>
>
> -- 
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email