Re: [perpass] Another mail-related proposal

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Mon, 19 August 2013 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0FE511E82EF for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.620, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hE5sADt8fFOV for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA1011E82FE for <perpass@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from splunge-2.local (70-90-161-117-ca.sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [70.90.161.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by v2.bluepopcorn.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id r7JITw4G007402; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:30:00 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; t=1376937000; bh=zqD5SqQbFbHZcHTDDZ+hTX5zlmbi94ZKOO3fLiwgfFk=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IZ7jldQPV8+FWguVT7bv4p1jLDNdI9uts4l+k+CsWY3/bKMX89ET49fbAsGK8lvb2 7beJS8sBsYmbIKEmOWLeAjS91t0Xjupm3wK6abGfRRVi7A+WzJKQBaNLEtvGBrlCXf jv31k29TF320cq+dECr5pcrSg1DQYMBO3anV7o2w=
Message-ID: <52126423.2050209@bluepopcorn.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:29:55 -0700
From: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
References: <520FE08B.80005@bluepopcorn.net> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1308171723400.14413@bofh.nohats.ca> <5210643F.8030709@bluepopcorn.net> <m2bo4vcuup.wl%randy@psg.com> <Pine.SGI.4.61.1308180959010.1312964@shell01.TheWorld.com> <5210F9D3.5010302@bluepopcorn.net> <m2zjsea6fd.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2zjsea6fd.wl%randy@psg.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: perpass@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [perpass] Another mail-related proposal
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for discussion of the privacy properties of IETF protocols and concrete ways in which those could be improved. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:49:27 -0000

On 8/18/13 5:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> What I'm proposing is slightly different. We would still encrypt (at
>> transport level) all messages when that's possible
> and the nsa pwns the disk drives of the smtp relays.  e2e, please, in
> addition to transport.  in 1984, all data and traffic should be
> encrypted.
>
That goes to the question I had in my original message on this thread:
what is the threat model we are attempting to address? In the short term
at least, I consider transport-level encryption of email to be helpful,
because it raises the required attack complexity.

I also wonder if pwning the disk drives of the smtp relays is really a
passive attack. But I don't have the context of the discussions in
Berlin, so perhaps 'passive' is being interpreted broadly.

-Jim