Subject: [dns-privacy] New DPRIVE evaluation document

From: Aziz Mohaisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:41:20 -0400

Dear DPRIVE(ers),

Allison and I prepared a new revision of our evaluation document
incorporating an extensive list of issues raised by Tim Wicinski (thanks
Tim!) and the result is posted here:

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-am-dprive-eval-02.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-am-dprive-eval/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-am-dprive-eval-02
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-am-dprive-eval-02

We are looking for further feedback from the community, so please send us,
or post your concerns on this thread.

Regards!
Aziz

---------
Aziz Mohaisen, Assistant Professor
Department of CSE - SUNY Buffalo
323 Davis Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260-2500,  USA
Phone: 1 (716) 645-1592
Fax: 1 (716) 645-3464

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~mohaisen/

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:58:14 +0200

Hello.  This is a useful document, thank you for working on it.    I
believe there is one fundamental aspect that you may want to consider
and address.  When I read this document it sometimes give me the
impression that the only interesting attack to protect against are
passive attacks.  In contrast, the RFC 7258 description include active
attacks as raising privacy concerns.  From a security point of view
this is totally obvious -- anyone being able to MITM your connection
will be able to read the traffic unless you authentication/encrypt the
channel.  For example section 5.1 and 5.2 make me uncertain what your
model really is.  RFC 7258 is not only about passive attacks, and by
ignoring active attackers you fail to address the problem of active
attackers.  I may have misunderstood the intent of your text, so you
may not actually intend to say what I read into what you are saying.
I believe it would clarify the document a lot to be more specific about
what protection applies to passive attackers and what applies to active
attackers.

/Simon

> incorporating an extensive list of issues raised by Tim Wicinski
> (thanks Tim!) and the result is posted here:
> 
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-am-dprive-eval-02
> 
> We are looking for further feedback from the community, so please
> send us, or post your concerns on this thread.
> 
> Regards!
> Aziz
> 
> ---------