[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: