Re: [ppsp] tickets for IETF 83

Indeed, I don’t think we should impose a security mechanism on the base protocol. There are existing systems that perform PEX without any security. Even the BitTorrent tracker allows you to spoof somebody and register them in the swarm.
There can be deployments where a secured PEX is not necessary (e.g., within a company).
In my view secure PEX can be left as an option.
Fabio

From: zhangyunfei [mailto:zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com]
Sent: mardi 15 mai 2012 05:14
To: arno@cs.vu.nl; ppsp; Picconi Fabio
Subject: Re: Re: [ppsp] tickets for IETF 83

Hi Arno，
   I guess Fabio's concern is mainly on the extra burden evaluation on the tracker by the security mechanism in PEX.

________________________________
zhangyunfei

From: Arno Bakker<mailto:arno@cs.vu.nl>
Date: 2012-05-14 20:37
To: ppsp@ietf.org<mailto:ppsp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ppsp] tickets for IETF 83
Hi Fabio and all

On 14/05/2012 14:04, Picconi Fabio wrote:
>
> Ticket #3 (secure PEX): I think that we can stick to a simple PEX
> mechanism that can be augmented by an optional secure algorithm. In
> addition to the solution proposed by Arno, there is a simple mechanism
> described by Jesi et al. [1].
>

IMHO, leaving PEX unsecured will get us comments from the IESG. My
proposal is actually compatible with Jesi, Montresor, van Steen (Maarten
van Steen is my boss). My membership certificates correspond to their
signed node descriptors. This mechanism alone will prevent the addresses
of innocent hosts being spread. I add some extra security by exploiting
the central tracker. They go fully decentralized by probing the graph
for malicious structures.

CU,
     Arno
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org<mailto:ppsp@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp