Information Security & Occasional Forays Into Adjacent Realms
via Norse Corporation's DarkMatters, comes word of new LinkedIn targeted attacks; this time, perpetrated (allegedly) by Iranian miscreants et. al... In this case, the researchers have fingered TG-2889. Read the full report here.
Superb screed from Cyrus Farivar writing at ArsTechnica, of General Hayden's view on this summers' modifications of the Freedom Act.
Presented for your consideration - a 1997 paper entitled The Use of Encrypted, Coded and Secret Communications is an "Ancient Liberty" Protected by the United States Constitution, published by the University of Virginia Journal of Law and Technology]*.
John Fraser III the author of this superlative screed (now an attorney in Washington, DC) presents his fascinating argument on encryption, and the 'ancient right' to utilize cryptographic artifacts in the course of communications, protected, of course, by our nations' Constitution. Today's Must Read.
*Va. J.L. & Tech. 2 Fall 1997 1522-1687 / © 1997 Virginia Journal of Law and Technology Association
via Wired's Kim Zetter, comes reportage, detailing the proposed ban on bitwise munitions, in this case, the United State's attempts at the utilization of the Wassenaar Arrangement as a foundational source for all things bannable, particularly systems, code, applications, and research in the information security realm...
Evidently, certain interested parties missed that day in law school when the discussion turned to the prohibition of the export of PGP, and the jailing of Phil Zimmermann, including the miniscule effect that effort had on the acquisition of the bits by parties unknown... History - apparently - does offer a repeatable repast.
Just getting around to examining the Microsoft Corporation (NasdaqGS: MSFT) Security Intelligence Report (SIR)... Now in it's eighteenth volume, the SIR is typically well-wrought, and might be considered pithy.
via David Bisson, writing at Tripwire's State of Security blog, comes a particularly dire warning from Keith Alexander, GEN (RET) USA (RET), holder of a Bronze Star and the 16th Director of the United States National Security Agency, focusing on the security bulwarks of the embattled Energy Sector.
In astonishing (yet unsurprising) news - a discovery by FireEye Labs (and published under the company's Threat Research blog) - of a decade-long espionage campaign by miscreants thereto (in thi case, allegation point to entities in the Peoples Republic of China). FireEye has announced the availability of an indicators download on GitHub here; the full report is available here. Clear proof of why security professionals should be quite concerned, specifically those folks who rely on *deeply flawed and nearly useless enterprise anti-virus and anti-malware products employed throughout most, if not all, enterprise IT environments... Ladies and Gentlemen, Girls and Boys, behold the money quote:
"All of the key findings we examined in the report lead us to conclude that APT 30 is a professional, cohesive threat group with a long-term mission to steal data that would benefit a government, and has been successful at doing so for quite some time. Such a sustained, planned development effort coupled with the group’s regional targets and mission, suggest that this activity is state sponsored." - via FireEye Labs and the FireEye Threat Research blog
via ArsTechnica's Sean Gallagher, comes an interesting DNS nugget, this time, focusing on efforts at OpenDNS to provide protective filtration at the name resolution level. Monikered NLPRank, it's an interesting solution to a vexing problem.
'O'Connor's approach, which is currently being tested by OpenDNS using live DNS query traffic, gets around the reputation problem by simply analyzing the domain name itself for sketchiness. It works in a way similar to natural language processing of any stream of text content.' - via ArsTechnica's Sean Gallagher
Astonishing news, via NextGov's Aliya Sternstein of a purported Watson-like automated, IARPA supported psychic, computational device. Seemingly mythic in nature, this project has overtones of Forbin coupled with Verne... Operating under the moniker "Cyber-attack Automated Unconventional Sensor Environment", this is certainly a component of national security that bears additional scrutiny, eh Watson?
"IBM has even expressed interest in the "Cyber-attack Automated Unconventional Sensor Environment," or CAUSE, project. Big Blue officials presented a basic approach at a Jan. 21 proposers' day. CAUSE is the brainchild of the Office for Anticipating Surprise under the director of national intelligence. A “Broad Agency Agreement” -- competition terms and conditions -- is expected to be issued any day now, contest hopefuls say." - via NextGov's Aliya Sternstein
via Anthony Freed, writing at Norse Coporation's Darkmatters blog, comes this better-late-than-never tale of Google Inc.'s (NasdaqGS: GOOG) effort to warn users of attack sites prior to the user opening up the miscreant's page.
In what may prove to be the most controversial presidential executive order this year, President Obama has signed 'Executive Order -- Promoting Private Sector Cybersecurity Information Sharing'; in which, the President authorizes the creation of another, so-called ISAO [Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs) {similar to the NCCIC and others}]. The Order appears below:
Executive Order -- Promoting Private Sector Cybersecurity Information Sharing
EXECUTIVE ORDER
PROMOTING PRIVATE SECTOR CYBERSECURITY INFORMATION SHARING
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. In order to address cyber threats to public health and safety, national security, and economic security of the United States, private companies, nonprofit organizations, executive departments and agencies (agencies), and other entities must be able to share information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents and collaborate to respond in as close to real time as possible.
Organizations engaged in the sharing of information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents play an invaluable role in the collective cybersecurity of the United States. The purpose of this order is to encourage the voluntary formation of such organizations, to establish mechanisms to continually improve the capabilities and functions of these organizations, and to better allow these organizations to partner with the Federal Government on a voluntary basis.
Such information sharing must be conducted in a manner that protects the privacy and civil liberties of individuals, that preserves business confidentiality, that safeguards the information being shared, and that protects the ability of the Government to detect, investigate, prevent, and respond to cyber threats to the public health and safety, national security, and economic security of the United States.
This order builds upon the foundation established by Executive Order 13636 of February 12, 2013 (Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity), and Presidential Policy Directive-21 (PPD-21) of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience).
Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions and programs described and assigned herein shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive-l (PPD-l) of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System), or any successor.
Sec. 2. Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall strongly encourage the development and formation of Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs).
(b) ISAOs may be organized on the basis of sector, sub-sector, region, or any other affinity, including in response to particular emerging threats or vulnerabilities. ISAO membership may be drawn from the public or private sectors, or consist of a combination of public and private sector organizations. ISAOs may be formed as for-profit or nonprofit entities.
(c) The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), established under section 226(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the "Act"), shall engage in continuous, collaborative, and inclusive coordination with ISAOs on the sharing of information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents, addressing such risks and incidents, and strengthening information security systems consistent with sections 212 and 226 of the Act.
(d) In promoting the formation of ISAOs, the Secretary shall consult with other Federal entities responsible for conducting cybersecurity activities, including Sector-Specific Agencies, independent regulatory agencies at their discretion, and national security and law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 3. ISAO Standards Organization. (a) The Secretary, in consultation with other Federal entities responsible for conducting cybersecurity and related activities, shall, through an open and competitive process, enter into an agreement with a nongovernmental organization to serve as the ISAO Standards Organization (SO), which shall identify a common set of voluntary standards or guidelines for the creation and functioning of ISAOs under this order. The standards shall further the goal of creating robust information sharing related to cybersecurity risks and incidents with ISAOs and among ISAOs to create deeper and broader networks of information sharing nationally, and to foster the development and adoption of automated mechanisms for the sharing of information. The standards will address the baseline capabilities that ISAOs under this order should possess and be able to demonstrate. These standards shall address, but not be limited to, contractual agreements, business processes, operating procedures, technical means, and privacy protections, such as minimization, for ISAO operation and ISAO member participation.
(b) To be selected, the SO must demonstrate the ability to engage and work across the broad community of organizations engaged in sharing information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents, including ISAOs, and associations and private companies engaged in information sharing in support of their customers.
(c) The agreement referenced in section 3(a) shall require that the SO engage in an open public review and comment process for the development of the standards referenced above, soliciting the viewpoints of existing entities engaged in sharing information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents, owners and operators of critical infrastructure, relevant agencies, and other public and private sector stakeholders.
(d) The Secretary shall support the development of these standards and, in carrying out the requirements set forth in this section, shall consult with the Office of Management and Budget, the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, the Information Security Oversight Office in the National Archives and Records Administration, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Sector-Specific Agencies, and other interested Federal entities. All standards shall be consistent with voluntary international standards when such international standards will advance the objectives of this order, and shall meet the requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113), and OMB Circular A-119, as revised.
Sec. 4. Critical Infrastructure Protection Program. (a) Pursuant to sections 213 and 214(h) of the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, I hereby designate the NCCIC as a critical infrastructure protection program and delegate to it authority to enter into voluntary agreements with ISAOs in order to promote critical infrastructure security with respect to cybersecurity.
(b) Other Federal entities responsible for conducting cybersecurity and related activities to address threats to the public health and safety, national security, and economic security, consistent with the objectives of this order, may participate in activities under these agreements.
(c) The Secretary will determine the eligibility of ISAOs and their members for any necessary facility or personnel security clearances associated with voluntary agreements in accordance with Executive Order 13549 of August 18, 2010 (Classified National Security Information Programs for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities), and Executive Order 12829 of January 6, 1993 (National Industrial Security Program), as amended, including as amended by this order.
Sec. 5. Privacy and Civil Liberties Protections. (a) Agencies shall coordinate their activities under this order with their senior agency officials for privacy and civil liberties and ensure that appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties are incorporated into such activities. Such protections shall be based upon the Fair Information Practice Principles and other privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks as they apply to each agency's activities.
(b) Senior privacy and civil liberties officials for agencies engaged in activities under this order shall conduct assessments of their agency's activities and provide those assessments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Chief Privacy Officer and the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties for consideration and inclusion in the Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessment report required under Executive Order 13636.
Sec. 6. National Industrial Security Program. Executive Order 12829, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows:
(a) the second paragraph is amended by inserting "the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004," after "the National Security Act of 1947, as amended,";
(b) Sec. 101(b) is amended to read as follows: "The National Industrial Security Program shall provide for the protection of information classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, or any predecessor or successor order, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).";
(c) Sec. 102(b) is amended by replacing the first paragraph with: "In consultation with the National Security Advisor, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, in accordance with Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, shall be responsible for implementing and monitoring the National Industrial Security Program and shall:";
(d) Sec. 102(c) is amended to read as follows: "Nothing in this order shall be construed to supersede the authority of the Secretary of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), or the authority of the Director of National Intelligence (or any Intelligence Community element) under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, or Executive Order 12333 of December 8, 1981, as amended, or the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security, as the Executive Agent for the Classified National Security Information Program established under Executive Order 13549 of August 18, 2010 (Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities).";
(e) Sec. 201(a) is amended to read as follows: "The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with all affected agencies and with the concurrence of the Secretary of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall issue and maintain a National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (Manual). The Secretary of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall prescribe and issue that portion of the Manual that pertains to information classified under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). The Director of National Intelligence shall prescribe and issue that portion of the Manual that pertains to intelligence sources and methods, including Sensitive Compartmented Information. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe and issue that portion of the Manual that pertains to classified information shared under a designated critical infrastructure protection program.";
(f) Sec. 201(f) is deleted in its entirety;
(g) Sec. 201(e) is redesignated Sec. 201(f) and revised by substituting "Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, or any successor order," for "Executive Order No. 12356 of April 2, 1982.";
(h) Sec. 201(d) is redesignated Sec. 201(e) and revised by substituting "the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of Homeland Security" for "and the Director of Central Intelligence.";
(i) a new Sec. 201(d) is inserted after Sec. 201(c) to read as follows: "The Manual shall also prescribe arrangements necessary to permit and enable secure sharing of classified information under a designated critical infrastructure protection program to such authorized individuals and organizations as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.";
(j) Sec. 202(b) is amended to read as follows: "The Director of National Intelligence retains authority over access to intelligence sources and methods, including Sensitive Compartmented Information. The Director of National Intelligence may inspect and monitor contractor, licensee, and grantee programs and facilities that involve access to such information or may enter into written agreements with the Secretary of Defense, as Executive Agent, or with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to inspect and monitor these programs or facilities, in whole or in part, on the Director's behalf.";
(k) Sec. 202(d) is redesignated as Sec. 202(e); and
(l) in Sec. 202 a new subsection (d) is inserted after subsection (c) to read as follows: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may determine the eligibility for access to Classified National Security Information of contractors, licensees, and grantees and their respective employees under a designated critical infrastructure protection program, including parties to agreements with such program; the Secretary of Homeland Security may inspect and monitor contractor, licensee, and grantee programs and facilities or may enter into written agreements with the Secretary of Defense, as Executive Agent, or with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to inspect and monitor these programs or facilities in whole or in part, on behalf of the Secretary of Homeland Security."
Sec. 7. Definitions. (a) "Critical infrastructure information" has the meaning given the term in section 212(3) of the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002.
(b) "Critical infrastructure protection program" has the meaning given the term in section 212(4) of the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002.
(c) "Cybersecurity risk" has the meaning given the term in section 226(a)(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (as amended by the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014).
(d) "Fair Information Practice Principles" means the eight principles set forth in Appendix A of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace.
(e) "Incident" has the meaning given the term in section 226(a)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (as amended by the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014).
(f) "Information Sharing and Analysis Organization" has the meaning given the term in section 212(5) of the Critical Infrastrucure Information Act of 2002.
(g) "Sector-Specific Agency" has the meaning given the term in PPD-21, or any successor.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law or Executive Order to an agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. Nothing in this order shall be construed to alter or limit any authority or responsibility of an agency under existing law including those activities conducted with the private sector relating to criminal and national security threats. Nothing in this order shall be construed to provide an agency with authority for regulating the security of critical infrastructure in addition to or to a greater extent than the authority the agency has under existing law.
(c) All actions taken pursuant to this order shall be consistent with requirements and authorities to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources and methods.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
Meanwhile, news of the creation of a new United States Agency is brightening some security professionals view of information sharing capabilities inter- and intra- government. Created in the likeness of the National Counterterrorism Center [itself created post 9/11 in the wake of information sharing failures within [and obviously without] the federal civilian government & the military]. Monikered the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, it will ostensibly function as the defacto repository for existing 'cyber' operations/intelligence facilities government-wide, and will facilitate information sharing and decision making capabilities [more, below].
"The CTIIC will focus on four priorities:
- via the Federal Times
Image via the Shodan Blog [https://shodanio.wordpress.com/]
Quite likely, the most important document published this week on Infosecurity.US, now over a half-year old, [released during the month of May, 2014]. In accordance with the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document, this RFC is published in it's entirety, without modification. Further information and Feedback opportunities can be found at the RFC Editor / RFC Database. The following information is the accurate content of RFC 7258. Enjoy!
###
BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Farrell Request for Comments: 7258 Trinity College Dublin BCP: 188 H. Tschofenig Category: Best Current Practice ARM Ltd. ISSN: 2070-1721 May 2014
Abstract Pervasive monitoring is a technical attack that should be mitigated in the design of IETF protocols, where possible. Status of This Memo This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Farrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 7258 Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014
Pervasive Monitoring (PM) is widespread (and often covert) surveillance through intrusive gathering of protocol artefacts, including application content, or protocol metadata such as headers. Active or passive wiretaps and traffic analysis, (e.g., correlation, timing or measuring packet sizes), or subverting the cryptographic keys used to secure protocols can also be used as part of pervasive monitoring. PM is distinguished by being indiscriminate and very large scale, rather than by introducing new types of technical compromise. The IETF community's technical assessment is that PM is an attack on the privacy of Internet users and organisations. The IETF community has expressed strong agreement that PM is an attack that needs to be mitigated where possible, via the design of protocols that make PM significantly more expensive or infeasible. Pervasive monitoring was discussed at the technical plenary of the November 2013 IETF meeting [IETF88Plenary] and then through extensive exchanges on IETF mailing lists. This document records the IETF community's consensus and establishes the technical nature of PM. The term "attack" is used here in a technical sense that differs somewhat from common English usage. In common English usage, an attack is an aggressive action perpetrated by an opponent, intended to enforce the opponent's will on the attacked party. The term is used here to refer to behavior that subverts the intent of communicating parties without the agreement of those parties. An attack may change the content of the communication, record the content or external characteristics of the communication, or through correlation with other communication events, reveal information the parties did not intend to be revealed. It may also have other effects that similarly subvert the intent of a communicator. [RFC4949] contains a more complete definition for the term "attack". We also use the term in the singular here, even though PM in reality may consist of a multifaceted set of coordinated attacks. In particular, the term "attack", used technically, implies nothing about the motivation of the actor mounting the attack. The motivation for PM can range from non-targeted nation-state surveillance, to legal but privacy-unfriendly purposes by commercial enterprises, to illegal actions by criminals. The same techniques to achieve PM can be used regardless of motivation. Thus, we cannot defend against the most nefarious actors while allowing monitoring by other actors no matter how benevolent some might consider them to be, since the actions required of the attacker are indistinguishable from other attacks. The motivation for PM is, therefore, not relevant for how PM is mitigated in IETF protocols. Farrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 7258 Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014
"Mitigation" is a technical term that does not imply an ability to completely prevent or thwart an attack. Protocols that mitigate PM will not prevent the attack but can significantly change the threat. (See the diagram on page 24 of RFC 4949 for how the terms "attack" and "threat" are related.) This can significantly increase the cost of attacking, force what was covert to be overt, or make the attack more likely to be detected, possibly later. IETF standards already provide mechanisms to protect Internet communications and there are guidelines [RFC3552] for applying these in protocol design. But those standards generally do not address PM, the confidentiality of protocol metadata, countering traffic analysis, or data minimisation. In all cases, there will remain some privacy-relevant information that is inevitably disclosed by protocols. As technology advances, techniques that were once only available to extremely well-funded actors become more widely accessible. Mitigating PM is therefore a protection against a wide range of similar attacks. It is therefore timely to revisit the security and privacy properties of our standards. The IETF will work to mitigate the technical aspects of PM, just as we do for protocol vulnerabilities in general. The ways in which IETF protocols mitigate PM will change over time as mitigation and attack techniques evolve and so are not described here. Those developing IETF specifications need to be able to describe how they have considered PM, and, if the attack is relevant to the work to be published, be able to justify related design decisions. This does not mean a new "pervasive monitoring considerations" section is needed in IETF documentation. It means that, if asked, there needs to be a good answer to the question "Is pervasive monitoring relevant to this work and if so, how has it been considered?" In particular, architectural decisions, including which existing technology is reused, may significantly impact the vulnerability of a protocol to PM. Those developing IETF specifications therefore need to consider mitigating PM when making architectural decisions. Getting adequate, early review of architectural decisions including whether appropriate mitigation of PM can be made is important. Revisiting these architectural decisions late in the process is very costly. While PM is an attack, other forms of monitoring that might fit the definition of PM can be beneficial and not part of any attack, e.g., network management functions monitor packets or flows and anti-spam Farrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 7258 Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014 mechanisms need to see mail message content. Some monitoring can even be part of the mitigation for PM, for example, certificate transparency [RFC6962] involves monitoring Public Key Infrastructure in ways that could detect some PM attack techniques. However, there is clear potential for monitoring mechanisms to be abused for PM, so this tension needs careful consideration in protocol design. Making networks unmanageable to mitigate PM is not an acceptable outcome, but ignoring PM would go against the consensus documented here. An appropriate balance will emerge over time as real instances of this tension are considered. Finally, the IETF, as a standards development organisation, does not control the implementation or deployment of our specifications (though IETF participants do develop many implementations), nor does the IETF standardise all layers of the protocol stack. Moreover, the non-technical (e.g., legal and political) aspects of mitigating pervasive monitoring are outside of the scope of the IETF. The broader Internet community will need to step forward to tackle PM, if it is to be fully addressed. To summarise: current capabilities permit some actors to monitor content and metadata across the Internet at a scale never before seen. This pervasive monitoring is an attack on Internet privacy. The IETF will strive to produce specifications that mitigate pervasive monitoring attacks.
In the past, architectural statements of this sort, e.g., [RFC1984] and [RFC2804], have been published as joint products of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). However, since those documents were published, the IETF and IAB have separated their publication "streams" as described in [RFC4844] and [RFC5741]. This document was initiated after discussions in both the IESG and IAB, but is published as an IETF- stream consensus document, in order to ensure that it properly reflects the consensus of the IETF community as a whole.
This document is entirely about privacy. More information about the relationship between security and privacy threats can be found in [RFC6973]. Section 5.1.1 of [RFC6973] specifically addresses surveillance as a combined security-privacy threat. Farrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 7258 Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014
We would like to thank the participants of the IETF 88 technical plenary for their feedback. Thanks in particular to the following for useful suggestions or comments: Jari Arkko, Fred Baker, Marc Blanchet, Tim Bray, Scott Brim, Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, Benoit Claise, Alissa Cooper, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins, Avri Doria, Wesley Eddy, Adrian Farrel, Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Ted Hardie, Sam Hartmann, Paul Hoffman, Bjoern Hoehrmann, Russ Housley, Joel Jaeggli, Stephen Kent, Eliot Lear, Barry Leiba, Ted Lemon, Subramanian Moonesamy, Erik Nordmark, Pete Resnick, Peter Saint-Andre, Andrew Sullivan, Sean Turner, Nicholas Weaver, Stefan Winter, and Lloyd Wood. Additionally, we would like to thank all those who contributed suggestions on how to improve Internet security and privacy or who commented on this on various IETF mailing lists, such as the ietf@ietf.org and the perpass@ietf.org lists.
[IETF88Plenary] IETF, "IETF 88 Plenary Meeting Materials", November 2013, <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/>. [RFC1984] IAB, IESG, Carpenter, B., and F. Baker, "IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet", RFC 1984, August 1996. [RFC2804] IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804, May 2000. [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 2003. [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007. [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", RFC 4949, August 2007. [RFC5741] Daigle, L., Kolkman, O., and IAB, "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009. [RFC6962] Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, "Certificate Transparency", RFC 6962, June 2013 Farrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 7258 Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack May 2014 [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July 2013. Authors' Addresses Stephen Farrell Trinity College Dublin Dublin 2 Ireland Phone: +353-1-896-2354 EMail: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Hannes Tschofenig ARM Ltd. 6060 Hall in Tirol Austria EMail: Hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at Farrell & Tschofenig Best Current Practice [Page 6] Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/
ENISA, the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security has published the agency's yearly Threat Landscape Report 2014 [PDF, 3,335 KB) analysis. Today's' Must Read.