Re: [perpass] privacy implications of UUIDs for IoT devices

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 14 October 2016 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 ED86D1295CF for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 03:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 nogRabDm1bYm for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 03:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1381296FE for <perpass@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 03:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.56.30.17] (unknown [116.84.110.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCD0681A44; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:26:07 +0200 (CEST)
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Peter Saint-Andre - Filament <peter@filament.com>, perpass@ietf.org
References: <5c32e81f-7e43-2bde-b8f4-46f08fecdefb@cs.tcd.ie> <db516334-43ab-e967-cfd5-87d920b65015@filament.com> <12e330d2-1097-7fba-1a9c-514e536878b0@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <62d7fc10-44c4-4625-54e2-6837cac5004f@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 01:28:35 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <12e330d2-1097-7fba-1a9c-514e536878b0@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perpass/vH2aDIoC-tJ3gASYa8gYtOOQwvM>
Cc: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [perpass] privacy implications of UUIDs for IoT devices
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:26:25 -0000

On 10/06/2016 08:15 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
> 
> So I think this is a recurring theme in various protocols
> and note that the drafts referenced in this thread overnight
> [1,2,3,4] total 134 pages of text. So istm that there is
> scope for a bit of generic guidance on the specific issues
> about which Peter is asking, i.e. guidance on what kinds
> of analysis to do when inventing or re-using an identifier
> in a protocol, and (mainly via reference I'd hope) describing
> the attack surface created when someone doesn't do that as
> well as they might.
> 
> If someone was willing to try craft a short I-D addressing
> the above, that'd I think be a fine thing. Anyone want to
> volunteer to try that? (If so, replying on or off list is
> fine.) Or is that a silly idea? (If you think so, then
> replying on the list is way better:-)

That's what we've tried to do in: draft-gont-numeric-ids-generation-01

Input welcome!

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492