* Tony Rutkowski wrote: >As a starter, the definition is self-contradictory. >The first sentence in the introduction uses RFC6973's >definition of surveillance with is aimed at an individual >and concatenates it with "pervasive" to come up with >something that says there "is no particular surveillance >target in mind." Which is it? You cannot logically >concatenate the two notions together.
You can resolve this by taking it as meaning everyone is a target, or simply accept that this is a common and easily understood construction just like we might talk of a "dry lake" even though we normally under- stand a lake to be a water body. >Similarly, the "perfect passive adversary" definition is a >self-contradiction. If the observer is taking no action, >there is no threat by definition. It seems to me the "passive" here is jargon and meant with respect to "the bits on the wire". An "active" attacker would manipulate bits on the wire, while a "passive" one does not; that does not stop them from taking other actions than manipulating the bits on the wire. Also, it should be clear that observation is an action and a threat by itself. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email protected] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
