Thanks Christian, Now that we seem to be getting a bit of a handle on the TLS related crypto parts of all this, (which are maybe easier or more tractable), I think it'd be timely to see some list discussion on traffic analysis before Vancouver.
I'd be interested in any less obvious ways in which IETF protocols might be making traffic analysis easier than it ought be. And of course in countermeasures, but those are maybe quite difficult. S. On 10/28/2013 06:37 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: > A few weeks ago, we had a brief exchange on this list about traffic > analysis, specifically the collection and analysis of IP packet headers. I > wanted to write a draft describing the issue and proposing solutions, but > the day job interfered and I was delayed. With that, I missed the cutoff > date by many days. But the good news is that I finally wrote a first cut of > this draft, and put it on a personal web server: > > > > Passive Traffic Analysis Threats and Defense > draft-huitema-perpass-analthreat-00.txt > > Abstract > > Traffic analysis is used by various entities to derive "meta data" > about Internet communications, such as who communicates with whom or > what, and when. We analyze how meta-data can be extracted by > monitoring IP headers, DNS traffic, and clear-text headers of > commonly used protocols. We then propose a series of actions that > would make traffic analysis more difficult. > > Available for now at: > http://huitema.net/papers/draft-huitema-perpass-analthreat-00.txt > > I am sure that this draft could be much improved with feedback from this > list! > > -- Christian Huitema > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > perpass mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
