IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [VIPR] VIPR privacy issue

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Mon, 06 February 2012 04:57 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@fluffy.im>
X-Original-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991FB21F848F for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:57:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f3sO5jw5Mjes for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1805D21F845E for <vipr@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so9520432iag.31 for <vipr@ietf.org>; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:57:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.42.199 with SMTP id q7mr19279044igl.9.1328504260661; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:57:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com. [128.107.239.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ub10sm13909663igb.7.2012.02.05.20.57.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@fluffy.im>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <00A1AC3E-167F-4243-9F1B-345AC99D2409@softarmor.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:57:38 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E0A81E2A-6E9C-4D83-9478-C54C21761C86@iii.ca>
References: <4F1F1A42.1030201@acm.org> <9734F726-C0A8-42D6-87A4-65535D5F3E80@bbn.com> <4F217CC9.4080802@acm.org> <50D0BC87-EC6C-401E-A2F9-A05AC60D5EF0@bbn.com> <4F2183D0.3070809@acm.org> <373FB643-AE7A-473C-A7AB-09F9A9E7093B@bbn.com> <4F21A121.10403@acm.org> <5466D9E6-3859-41A7-9A54-D23DC6D775C6@iii.ca> <E9DCDEA3-5BDC-41E6-B2BE-606E4CCE4F1B@bbn.com> <00A1AC3E-167F-4243-9F1B-345AC99D2409@softarmor.com>
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "vipr@ietf.org" <vipr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [VIPR] VIPR privacy issue
X-BeenThere: vipr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Verification Involving PSTN Reachability working group <vipr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vipr>
List-Post: <mailto:vipr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:57:41 -0000

Just as an idle question that I have not thought about much ... how does this attack change if you assume the VIPR server and SIP edge element for a domain are running on an Amazon EC2 node?


On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Dean Willis wrote:

> 
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> 
>> <hat type="geopriv"/>
>> 
>> Could we please distinguish between "location privacy" and "IP address privacy"?  They are related, but distinct concepts.
>> 
> 
> Yep. Mobile IP can give us location privacy without IP address privacy.
> 
> Hmm ...  a separate RELOAD usage for MobileIP, then bootstrap VIPR on top of that. Might work.
> 
> What ever happened to HIP, anyhow? We're just dancing around the locator-separator problem here.
> 
> --
> Dean
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email