[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SOI: identity protection and DOS
Derek Atkins writes:
> I think there is a HUGE HUGE difference between giving information to
> the person I think I want to talk to, and letting anyone else hear it.
> Whether I trust you is a completely different argument and is
> irrelevant. The point is that I may not know what YOU will do with
> the data I give you, but at least I know only YOU have it. If it's
> sent unprotected, then anyone can not only see it, but can perform
> traffic analysis on who I'm contacting and when.
I'm 99% certain we've entered a rathole here because
we got here by way of saying that public key certs
might contain private information on them. I still
find that a highly dubious proposition, regardless
of whether you think that transactional identity
hiding is a good idea.
> What added expense? One round-trip and a DH? Sorry, that
> doesn't sound very expensive to me. Moreover, it isn't even
> an extra round-trip; it's only one-half a round trip:
It also brings in the expense of doing DH's
and the associated baggage of what to do to
prevent spoofing attacks. *If* the protocol
is required to provide preshared key support,
that seems rather overweight. Note again, that
I prefaced my original comment in terms of "if"
it causes additional overhead it should be
optional. This is clearly the case with
preshared keys, less so with certs.
Mike
Follow-Ups:
References: