Re: [secdir] [dns-privacy] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:45 AM Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On 29 Nov 2019, at 15:39, Stephen Farrell via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewer: Stephen Farrell
> > Review result: Ready
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thanks for reviewing (again)!
>
> >
> > I might not be the best reviewer for this one as I've read it a few times
> > before. But anyway, I scanned the diff [1] with RFC7626 and figure it
> > seems fine.
> >
> > The only thing that occurred to me that seemed missing was to note
> > that while the new privacy analysis in 3.5.1.1 is already complex, many
> > systems are mobile and hence an analysis that ignores that won't be
> > sufficient. For a mobile device one really needs to analyse all of the
> > possible setups, and hence it's even harder to get to a good answer.
> > (It could be that that's elsewhere in the document but since I only
> > read the diff, I didn't see it:-)
>
> There was a bit of discussion about this and the following text in 3.4.1
> was added:
>
> “ It is also noted that typically a device connected _only_ to a modern
>    cellular network is
>
>    o  directly configured with only the recursive resolvers of the IAP
>       and

>    o  all traffic (including DNS) between the device and the cellular
>       network is encrypted following an encryption profile edited by the
>       Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP [2]).
>
>    The attack surface for this specific scenario is not considered here."
>

This seems insufficient. We don't generally assume that the encryption in
mobile access networks is secure, if only for operational complexity
reasons.
So I think this case could do with rather more text.

-Ekr

>
> Which hopefully covers this?
>
> Sara
>
> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> dns-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>