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

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

 




On 01/07/2014 02:13 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 1/7/14 4:28 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hi Stephan,
> [ ... ]
>>> I¹m personally convinced that, on balance, the
>>> world would be a much worse place without ³attacks² than with.  
>>
>> I see. So you're all for hacking into Belagcom then? I'm sure they'll
>> be a little sad to hear that. Esp. if the next attacker is not a
>> government agency.
> 
> I think that it's pretty clear to most of us that, whether or
> not we think that government eavesdropping should be trivially
> easy, that thinking that the ability for them to do so is not
> the same thing that thinking that attacks from other malefactors
> would be a good thing.  It'd be somewhat more compelling to argue
> that enabling trivially easy eavesdropping by one party enables
> it for another, which I also think is a more correct argument.
> If I were Stephan I'd be reading what you wrote and thinking
> "No, that's not what I think - Stephen's wrong" rather than
> "Stephen has a point."
> 
> At a minimum it might be good to argue what's been actually
> written rather than to impute all sorts of views to someone
> and then argue against those.
> 
> At any rate I do think that we can probably discuss this without
> people who disagree with you being characterized as naive,
> enthusiasts of various sorts of attacks, etc.

Well you're probably right that the way I phrased the Belgacom
point above was a bit aggressive, (and sorry for that folks),
but it is valid - in that case an active hacking attack seems
to have been used to setup a later passive attack. And I do think
Stephan's mail was naive in at least that it seems to consider
that network elements can distinguish between good and bad guys.

> At any rate I don't agree with much of what Stephan has written
> but I do agree that there appears to be some risk that consensus
> is likely to be asserted despite what seem to me to be some
> significant disagreements over publication status.

Figuring that out is Jari's job, I'm just an interested author
here. (Albeit a quite energised author:-)

S.


> 
> Melinda
> 
> 
> 




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