Re: Request for Authenticated but not Encrypted Traffic

[Dave Taht <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 9:51 AM Paul Vixie
<paul=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> see inline.
>
> Carsten Bormann wrote on 2022-09-30 00:37:
> > On 2022-09-30, at 09:25, Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> what did you have in mind as an example of this, that i might not dislike?
> >
> > ...
> >
> > The part I do not understand is why this is always framed in terms of
> > uncontrolled (unrestricted) visibility, i.e., everybody who manages to
> > get hold of a packet has full visibility.
>
> i could live with uncontrolled visibility on my own VM server's internal
> networks, or on my datacenter or home LAN. i am open to other ways to
> achieve the nec'y visibility -- i don't require that it be uncontrolled.
>
> > ...
> >
> > Instead, I'd prefer to pursue something that I'd call Authorized
> > Visibility (AV).  Here, the communication actors explicitly provide
> > visibility to additional justified parties, not simply to any
> > eavesdropper that comes along.  ...
>
> i'd be fine with this, as long as it was possible for my gateway to
> determine at line rate whether each packet trying to get through was
> participating in the Authorized Visibility regime you're describing.

In general my opinions match pauls, but I don't have the energy to wade in here.

Anecdote: These days I pretty much block and log all udp traffic aimed
at china. If any of you have ever bought a security camera made there,
you'd understand why.


> > Grüße, Carsten
> and you.
>
> --
> P Vixie
>


-- 
This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC