Re: [TLS] Encrypted SNI

[Darin Pettis <[e-mail]>]

+1



On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:08 PM Bret Jordan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> From a discussion on the PATIENT list found here:
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/patient/current/msg00078.html
>
>
> From my personal perspective, we need to be careful with all of these
> efforts. It feels like the pendulum has swung so far to one side, the side
> of privacy-at-any-cost, that we are unknowingly increasing the risk to
> individuals and organizations by enabling threat actors and intrusions sets
> to attack networks and clients without any level of protection from the
> network.
>
> It also feels like a lot of these initiatives are being done without
> adequately involving and ensuring that enterprise networks and critical
> infrastructure can work with these changes. Question, do we know how these
> ideas and changes are going to impact an organizations ability to fulfill
> their requirements for regulatory compliance?
>
> If we continue down these paths, then I fear networks will be required to
> wrap all traffic in some other less secure protocol, outright deny some of
> these protocols, or be forced to fully proxy all traffic or take an
> approach that Google has done with their BeyondCorp design.
>
> The IETF work needs to do more outreach with enterprise networks and
> critical infrastructure and be fundamentally more inclusive.
> Privacy-at-any-cost is not a holistic design.
>
> Thanks,
> Bret
> PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
> "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that
> can not be unscrambled is an egg."
>
>
>
> ### Copied content from the PATIENT discussion ####
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf
> at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr at rtfm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Tony Rutkowski <tony at yaanatech.co
>> ..uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Your point is one that deserves further discussion, Eric - which seems
>> >> likely to scale rapidly going forward.  It is key.
>> >>
>> >> So how does draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption it into the argument?
>> >
>> >
>> > As you suggest, SNI encryption is intended to conceal the SNI, which of
>> > course would make SNI inspection difficult.
>> >
>> > My evaluation of the current state of SNI encryption is that given the
>> > current technical state, it will not see particularly wide deployment,
>> with
>> > the primary scenario being "at-risk" sites who are subject to
>> censorship who
>> > either hide behind or co-tenant with sites which are not subject to
>> > censorship. That probably isn't going to be incredibly common right
>> now. Of
>> > course, this is regrettable from the perspective of people designing
>> these
>> > protocols, but I think that's the situation.
>>
>> EKR posted a draft to encrypt SNI, see:
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg26468.html
>>
>> It targets the CDNs who host most of the web traffic in the US at
>> least.  The right place to comment on this would be the TLS list of
>> course, but since proposals are being posted, this is a reality and
>> needs to be discussed.  Those using SNI need to make sure their use
>> cases are clear and understood and argue the pros and cons.
>>
>
> Kathleen,
>
> Thanks for pointing out this draft.
>
> As they say, predictions are hard, especially about the future. In March,
> the ESNI problem looked pretty intractable and then subsequently we had
> this idea about why it might be workable.
>
> -Ekr
>
> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>>
>> >
>> > -Ekr
>> >
>> >> On 18-Mar-18 8:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Tony Rutkowski <tony at
>> yaanatech.co.uk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Diego,
>> >>>
>> >>> It is also worth referencing a relatively recent Lawfare article on
>> the
>> >>> scaling litigation in the U.S. against those supporting e2e encryption
>> >>> services or capabilities.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://www.lawfareblog.com/did-congress-immunize-twitter-against-lawsuits-supporting-isis
>> >>>
>> >>> This litigation trend is also likely to increase the insurance costs
>> of
>> >>> providers.  Indeed, a provider that supports TLS1.3, QUIC, SNI, etc,
>> may not
>> >>> even be able to get insurance.  It may be fun and games to play
>> crypto rebel
>> >>> in venues like the IETF where the risk exposure is minimal, but when
>> it
>> >>> comes to real world consequences and costs, the equations for
>> providers are
>> >>> rather different.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think this rather overestimates the degree to which both TLS 1.3 and
>> >> QUIC change the equation about what a provider is able to determine
>> from
>> >> traffic inspection. As a practical matter, the primary change from TLS
>> 1.2
>> >> is that the provider does not get to see the server's certificate, but
>> it
>> >> does see the SNI. Given that the SNI contains the identity of the
>> server
>> >> that the client is connected to and that the other identities in the
>> >> certificate are often whatever the provider decided to co-locate on
>> the same
>> >> machine, I'm not sure how much information you are really losing.
>> >>
>> >> -Ekr
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --tony
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> PATIENT mailing list
>> >>> PATIENT at ietf.org
>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/patient
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> PATIENT mailing list
>> >> PATIENT at ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/patient
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PATIENT mailing list
>> > PATIENT at ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/patient
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>