Re: [Ntp] NTPv5 draft

[Marcus Dansarie <[e-mail]>]

On 2020-12-07 17:38, Salz, Rich wrote:
> My view is that it is no longer acceptable to design a protocol for
deployment on the open Internet that has no authentication or message
integrity and that people who disagree are out of consensus.

On 2020-12-07 23:25, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> I think that “private networks” and the notion of “the Intranet as
implicitly secure” and the term “inside the perimeter” will fall by the
wayside before 2030.

> Those that don’t think they need security inside their perimeter are
simply those that haven’t had an insider attack, or someone bring in a
contaminated laptop onto the campus network, etc… or haven’t yet
realized that they have.

On 2020-12-08 15:20, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I'll claim that I already have, but to restate and scale it down a
bit: all messages sent by a server must include authentication and
tamper-proof. I do not believe anything less is acceptable these days.

Add me to the list of proponents of mandatory security in NTPv5.
Protocols being designed today MUST enforce security. The problem we
have to address is how to achieve this in a way that aligns with users'
needs. Someone setting up an appliance for personal use, on an intranet,
or airgapped network might not be interested in keeping certificates
updated, distributing keys or stuffing them in DNS, and such. Trust on
first use may be an acceptable scheme in those cases.

/Marcus