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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 12/07/17 13:24, Kyle Rose wrote:
> This proposal (and related proposals involving encrypting session keys to
> inspection boxes, either in-band or OOB) violates condition 2 because one
> endpoint would have to intentionally take action to deliver the session key
> or private DH share to the third party.

I agree if there are only two parties, i.e. some deployments
of schemes like this wiretapping scheme, do not meet the
definition of wiretapping in 2804.

> If one endpoint is feeding
> cryptographic material to a third party (the only way that information gets
> out to the third party, vulnerabilities notwithstanding), they are
> collaborating, not enabling wiretapping.

That's nonsense. In the POTS case, telcos are collaborating
with their local LEAs and that is wiretapping. Claiming that
no deployment of this scheme (e.g. the SMTP or wordpress.com
type ones already described on the list) meets the 2804
definition is just silly.

S.