IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8131ADF78 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:58:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 HiL9FUf35A4P for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:58:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE181ADF10 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.150]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rALDwQES008206; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:58:26 +0200
X-CheckPoint: {528E0F2A-3-1B221DC2-1FFFF}
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.2.146]) by DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.3.213]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:58:25 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Ralf Skyper Kaiser <skyper@thc.org>
Thread-Topic: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft
Thread-Index: AQHO5j44GuxdNw/HskiWib62c9hVzpovcOkAgAAkkAA=
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:58:24 +0000
Message-ID: <223EC5F4-94E8-4507-95DB-56295F72FBB0@checkpoint.com>
References: <528D34D7.1010303@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+BZK2pKpbJaGNWOeM22QQ1kVBdXuxAz99eX4jBz38HqWOBVjQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+BZK2pKpbJaGNWOeM22QQ1kVBdXuxAz99eX4jBz38HqWOBVjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.31.21.110]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <09490A889CFC7048923180EEC64E37FD@ad.checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [perpass] "Its an attack" BCP draft
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive monitoring. " <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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:58:48 -0000

On Nov 21, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Ralf Skyper Kaiser <skyper@thc.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> "...pervasive monitoring significantly more expensive or infeasible"
> 
> Recommend to remove 'significantly'. (otherwise there will be an argument what 'significant' means. 1M USD? 10M USD? And how expensive is it anyway to send a RST to 240M users? 1 cent? 1 Dollar?).

I agree there will be an argument. But don't you think we need some criterion for defining success?  If we increase the cost 1000x, they have to totally change their operating model. If we increase the cost 10x, they will have to scale back what they're doing. If we increase it 1.5x?  Probably just makes the American tax payer pay a little more.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email