The Internet Society has awarded the Jonathan B. Postel Service Award to Rob Blokzijl, Ph.D. for his tireless labor and over 25 years as the Founding Member, and Retired Chair (retired in May 2014) at (Réseaux IP Européens] aka RIPE. That work coupled with the critically important labor of assisting other European policy makers, engineers and scientists to spread the Internet across Europe informed the selection of Dr. Blokzijl!.
'During the 1980s, Dr. Blokzijl was active in building networks for the particle physics community in Europe. Through his experience at the National Institute for Nuclear and High Energy Physics (NIKHEF) and CERN, he recognized the power of collaborating with others building networks for research and travelled worldwide to promote cooperation across networkers. In the 1990s, Dr. Blokzijl was influential in the creation of the Amsterdam Internet Exchange, one of the first in Europe. His most widely recognized contribution is as founding member and 25-year chairman of RIPE, the European open forum for IP networking. Dr. Blokzijl was also instrumental in the creation of RIPE NCC in 1992, the first Regional Internet Registry in the world.' - via the Internet Society
Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) Report #4799 Document entitled 'A History of the ARPANET: The First Decade'. First published in 1981, and detailing early ARPANET engineering, via the March 2015 'The Internet Protocol Journal' (Volume 18, Number 1). Download IPJ back issues and find subscription information at Internet Prorocol Journal.
via Grant Gross, writing at PC World, comes news of the United States Federal Communications Commission denial of submitted requests from a group of Cable and Telephony providers (the ususal suspects) to slow the implementation of the Commission's Net Neutrality rules. This, my fiends, is one commish we can all get behind (except, of course, the Cable, Telephony and their lobbyists).
Behold, Mobile Monday DC. Today's Must See TV...
The panel represented a stakeholder cross-section - small carriers, lobbyists, and content/application providers. Speakers: Dan Johnson, VP, Policy, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA); Jon Potter, President, Application Developers Alliance; Aaron Saunders, CEO, Clearly Innovative; Eric Wolf, VP Technology Strategy & Management, PBS. Moderator: Stephanie Joyce, Arent Fox. - via Joly MacFie
ISOC - the Internet Society, has released the compiled results of the organizations' 2015 Internet Governance Survey (download the PDF here). Via the 2015 Internet Governance Survey, the primary takeaways are:
The majority of respondents (86%) indicated that Cybersecurity is the most important issue facing the Internet community today;
The priorities for the community are to make Internet governance easier to understand (with 75% feeling that this is “Extremely” or “Very Important”) and to develop and share best practices amongst countries and communities (70% indicating that this was Extremely” or “Very Important”);
A high percentage of respondents (90%) indicated that informal local and regional communities should be enhanced while 87% of respondents want the global, regional, and national Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) to be enhanced; and
27% of respondents think NMI is needed for effective Internet governance, while 56% indicated that they are unclear as to whether NMI is needed, and 17% think it is not needed.
The Federal Communications Commission has issued the codified order targeting Net Neutrality. Entitled FCC 15-24*, for GN Docket Number 14-28, In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order. At over *Four hundred pages long*, this document will (likely) become one of the most highly contentious Orders emerging this year (or the weapon of choice for conspiracy theorists due to it's weight*) from the Commission.
Astoundingly, myths still arise in this epoch of science, strangely so, when dealing with new technologies [Read: new means new in the final two years of the last century as IPv4 was originally codified by the IETF in 1981, with the acceptance of RFC 791] - in this case the vaunted move to IPv6. Now, arising from the ashes of IPv4 exhaustion hysteria, comes a current popular myth surrounds the utilization NATs in IPv4 and the lack of a counterpart construct in IPv6.
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
Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack
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
1. Pervasive Monitoring Is a Widespread Attack on Privacy
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
2. The IETF Will Work to Mitigate Pervasive Monitoring
"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.
3. Process Note
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.
4. Security Considerations
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 email@example.com and the firstname.lastname@example.org lists.
6. Informative References
[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: email@example.com Hannes Tschofenig ARM Ltd. 6060 Hall in Tirol Austria EMail: Hannes.firstname.lastname@example.org 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/