Re: [perpass] Getting started...

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

hi SM, Stephen, all,

On Aug 17, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Discussions about monitoring is a sensitive subject.  
> 
> Yes. However, even those who want to be able to monitor at point X,
> probably don't want their sensitive stuff monitored at points Y,Z,...
> So you don't actually have to have inhaled all the fumes to think
> its a good plan for Internet protocols to be more robust against
> pervasive monitoring.
> 
>> I am curious to
>> see whether the 50 people are willing to discuss about that on this
>> mailing list. :-)
> 
> I hope so. We had some good discussions in Berlin at any rate and
> my hope is that at least the people involved in that will chime in.
> But I guess we'll see when we see.

There's also a difference between the threat models of pervasive monitoring (an analysis of what can be done) and operational practice (a report of what _is_ done). We should, to the extent possible, work from the former, referring to the latter anecdotally -- because that, I suspect, is all we're going to get.

Of course, if the threat model is "the adversary cooperates with the endpoint(s) of the communication", there's not a whole lot you can do at the protocol level. But that is, I think, a point for wider discussion, and there is significant work to be done, even if it just ends up being a cross-area awareness-building exercise; on which more soon.

Cheers,

Brian