IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [perpass] SMTP and SRV records

Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-perpass@employees.org> Wed, 25 November 2015 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dfawcus@employees.org>
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 DC44A1A1AFF for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 04:29:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, 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 iaK4QEz23fpk for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 04:29:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (cowbell.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:a000:17::142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F27211A0390 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 04:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44BED7882 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 04:29:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h= resent-from:resent-date:resent-message-id:resent-to:date:from:to :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=selector1; bh=/p6l/AKO4AVdA5XGbmp1dgfuW90=; b=j2 i35Hx0++mYAYKnL6yWwfjJO55e+MCS2PbrZ4Rn8wdoBlgZFHYbQbNS1PMrTVT0Y7 Ez+DErYHvHhacyrZBIrjL0zyyTIi2hC6esFzt2NSWoWLVRYtBGO2QF0kSjn4ruey TdG3XhpQ/Xnlx2TK02/nMhUvLfOj//azQ04a2eiKo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=resent-from :resent-date:resent-message-id:resent-to:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q= dns; s=selector1; b=Y+BpWYmVByEbechyT2dseaWrvsauRqNnc153kkvHnkeR HurRj/68I7bqypV8Nn2T2CiKBaAZ0pRu7jDZHeBhFaf4N64VdUQKpJBrbYDVG3Hi Ue9B4WlTqBIxvaaY9f6c+pF+I3P/DUXY/9c/WSus2bcYB6M5+I0u3FN1qFWUWJU=
Received: by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix, from userid 1736) id A666FD7881; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 04:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Resent-From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@employees.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:29:03 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <20151125122903.GD75123@cowbell.employees.org>
Resent-To: perpass@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:27:13 +0000
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-perpass@employees.org>
To: perpass <perpass@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20151125122713.GC75123@cowbell.employees.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, perpass <perpass@ietf.org>
References: <20151124201103.GA9353@cowbell.employees.org> <5654D5AF.50700@cisco.com> <20151125071128.GA99066@cowbell.employees.org> <6FD77081-7C68-4266-9C26-3443C73F4EFA@trammell.ch> <20151125115248.GA75123@cowbell.employees.org> <5655A3F2.60900@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5655A3F2.60900@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perpass/pYmUnxV-QGIWvV2xKep0IlD92vM>
Subject: Re: [perpass] SMTP and SRV records
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:29:05 -0000

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 01:05:06PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This smells a lot more like an attempt to inhibit lawful intercept than
> it does to stop a bad guy spying on email.

Hardly,  they can still intercept it,  it would just be encrypted.
 
There are multiple levels of privacy:
 
1) A communicated with B,  but the nature of the comms is uncharacterised.
2) A communicated with B (using email)
3) A communicated with B, the email had contents X
 
Encryption should defeat 3,  leaving 1 & 2.
 
I'm suggesting a way to also defeat 2,  or at least make its recognition
more difficult.  None of these prevent 1.

This is an attempt to make bulk interception,  and its offline post facto
analysis more awkward.  It'll have no effect upon targetted inteception.
(since there one could see the DNS queries,  and know which were for SMTP).

But,  if there is not interest in this;  I guess I'll drop it.

DF

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email