On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:18 PM, "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cullen, > > Nice draft! I have been thinking about this problem as well and wonder where > the line is for those who want protections from monitoring. What level of > protection is needed so that the options we provide make sense and are > actually used? Do we need to go further and what is the demand? I'v been pitching we need to make it harder for the bad guys and easier for the good guys. I think the lowest hanging fruit right now is mostly in easier for the good guys. Lot so places we have no security because it is inconvenient. Opportunistic encryption for example might make it easier for the good guys to have some encryption even though it was not as good as authenticated encryption. I want to figure out how to make this all cheap and easy for the end user. > > In addition to your proposal, I am wondering if we need alternate algorithms > when worried about these use cases (e.g. Twofish instead of AES, etc.). I'm not a crypto guy but it seems someone needs to be thinking about this. I sort of mention the formation of a "Suite Z" for people that don't like "Suite B". > Also, having the IdP as a service provider may be a showstopper for those > concerned with monitoring, why couldn't that service provider be contacted as > well? If Skype is both the service provide and the IdP, well this is not much different than the current situation. But if I could run my own IdP on hardware I trust, or my employer could run an IdP on a server they trust and I trust them, well that would make for a different model. > > The point at which encryption is performed is use case dependent. You > mention encryption at the client in the strategy slide, which is very > important for this use case (not at the host or storage level). I would > suggest repeating this in the Encrypted Data Content slide - encryption at > the client or 'guest' level. Guest is another term I have been hearing, but > I am not sure if it is a common term. Hmm - I'm not familiar with this "Guest" term in this context - can you explain more. > > Thanks, > Kathleen > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 20, 2013, at 5:57 PM, "Cullen Jennings" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I've been thinking about how to build cloud collaborations systems where the >> data is encrypted and the cloud does not have the keys. Very interested in >> hearing others thoughts on how to do this. >> >> Near the end is a list of things that it would be helpful if the IETF >> standardized. >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-jennings-perpass-secure-rai-cloud-00.pdf >> >> Cullen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> perpass mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass >> _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
