Re: [TLS] chairs - please shutdown wiretapping discussion...

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 10 July 2017 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7658A1318EC for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wBXvAb7qxAJD for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C06112F27C for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF834BE2F; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:35:24 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82PcvS0tLjfq; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:35:23 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.100] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AD72BE2C; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:35:23 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1499722523; bh=uZU2SzdFjjzjDo127dmP2Rh7f1VfODiCj6ybpQOQ3Ng=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=EMfuzKRdKfsrryW+0aWh3q2UxhnT15GajT+r9FCCbu3eIDc+sfMOTv1ZbZxM+9VAX ynJJwsfhVuUgj9zcT03LhgJIgoiEynSAMfiU/VdzD5xlXGcHz8LYdSSKWtJ1L5P5B7 2mNXU1M41Il57TmmEBWFlPrcMm6CO00EXw1m14aA=
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: "Polk, Tim (Fed)" <william.polk@nist.gov>, IETF TLS <tls@ietf.org>
References: <E9640B43-B3AD-48D7-910D-F284030B5466@nist.gov> <CY4PR14MB13688370E0544C9B84BB52A3D7A90@CY4PR14MB1368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <9693fc25-6444-e066-94aa-47094700f188@cs.tcd.ie> <CY4PR14MB1368BA01881DD9495FE86DF0D7A90@CY4PR14MB1368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <d806a69c-af30-c963-a361-91075332a61b@cs.tcd.ie> <F87D7646-DC53-4EF8-A2D8-D0939A0FB351@vigilsec.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <b9001044-83d7-805c-2a49-c2780401bbf8@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:35:21 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F87D7646-DC53-4EF8-A2D8-D0939A0FB351@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sC3OJAjtExnpiqCMAHVEQr9pjhc6VqILf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/jZ0qaSOciUlyrP5xpx3p8kfpTHY>
Subject: Re: [TLS] chairs - please shutdown wiretapping discussion...
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:35:28 -0000


On 10/07/17 22:26, Russ Housley wrote:
> Stephen:
> 
>> And to avoid a repeat of Russ' failed justification, many protocols
>> use and depend on TLS where the entity controlling the TLS server
>> private key materials is not the higher layer sender or receiver,
>> so all four points in the definition in 2804 are fully met by your
>> wiretapping scheme.
> 
> It is clear that you do not agree with the reasoning that I posted on
> Friday.  Some people do, and clearly, others do not.
> 
> So, I failed to convince you.  However, you have also failed to
> convince me that the proposal is wiretapping under the definition in
> RFC 2804, Section 3.

Consider SMTP/TLS. Where one MTA on the path supports this.
Say it's one operated by an anti-spam company for example.
That is clearly not the sender nor recipient.

That meets all 4 points in 2804, right?

S.

> 
> Russ
> 
>