Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 01:35:58PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Bjoern" == Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>     Bjoern> tell, is telling us that Google Analytics is an attack. The

> So, our threat model has included passive monitoring basically since we
> first wrote it down.

Yes, but that doesn't rule out Google Analytics, as long as the user
knows about it and desires it, right?  

I think, therefore, this bit needs an addition:

   For the purposes of this BCP "pervasive monitoring" means very
   widespread privacy-invasive gathering of protocol artefacts including
   application content, protocol meta-data (such as headers) or keys
   used to secure protocols.  Other forms of traffic analysis, for
   example, correlation, timing or measuring packet sizes can also be
   used for pervasive monitoring.

Adding the sentence, "In addition, to qualify as pervasive monitoring,
the activity should be either unknown to or unwelcome by the target of
the monitor," would make the difference explicit.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]