On 7/23/19 4:05 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:51 AM Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks to all the feedback provided, we have updated the
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-camwinget-tls-use-cases-04
draft. At this point, we believe the draft is stable and would
like to request its publication as an informational draft.
I read this draft as the latest attempt in a disinformation campaign
by manufacturers and users of middleboxes that passively decrypt TLS
connections to politicize and reframe the argument around what is, at
its core, a fundamentally insecure practice which is incompatible with
technically sound and highly desirable protocol improvements to TLS.
I implore you stop using overly broad terminology, euphemisms, weasel
words, and other deceptive language to argue your points.
I am not a mind-reader, so I will refrain from attributing malice to
your choice of words - I would appreciate it if you would extend the
same courtesy.
This draft is titled "TLS 1.3 Impact on Network-Based Security", but
the subtext is quite clearly the much narrower subfield of middlebox
TLS decryption. By using such a grandiose title which is deceptively
hiding the true subject matter, you are implying that middleboxes are
the sum total of network security.
No such implication is intended - we will look for a more accurate
document title.
The draft begins "Enterprises [...] need to defend their information
systems from attacks originating from both inside and outside their
networks." I am co-owner of a company which heavily leverages
firewalls for layer 3/4 network security in conjunction with TLS. We
care deeply about network security, and believe that our network is
*more secure* specifically because we *don't* perform middlebox
interception of TLS.
I consider our company to be in the category of enterprise TLS users,
and as an enterprise TLS user who cares deeply about network security,
I do not identify whatsoever with the claims this draft is making
about the needs of enterprise TLS users as a whole. In as much as what
it describes to "network security", it is but one niche consideration
within a vastly broader field, and one which is increasingly
controversial.
It is indeed controversial, and different enterprises have different
views on these. I know this because I regularly interact with a number
of these across different industries.
I will point out, since you appear to work at Cisco, that your company
works on approaches to network security (e.g. malware detection) which
avoid decrypting TLS:
https://blogs.cisco.com/security/detecting-encrypted-malware-traffic-without-decryption
I am quite familiar with this. Please note that it does not provide a
full replacement for all existing capabilities
There is an entire world of network IDS systems beyond middleboxes
which passively decrypt TLS.
Are you saying that it is possible to passively decrypt TLS 1.3 sessions
without being a MITM (or otherwise sharing keying material) ?
It is factually inaccurate for this draft to be described as "TLS 1.3
Impact on Network-Based Security". If you are going to write a draft
about the impact of TLS 1.3 on middleboxes for passive TLS decryption,
please call a spade a spade and don't try to hide your true intentions
under a bunch of weasel words and overly broad claims that make it
sound like middlebox-related TLS decryption problems are the end of
network security as we know it.
My 2c, on behalf of non-middlebox-using enterprise TLS users who feel
that attempts by middlebox-using enterprise TLS users to weaken TLS in
order to retain compatibility with their traffic decryption appliances
is a threat to the security of our enterprise TLS deployments.
Please see my earlier comments on this.
Thanks
-- Flemming
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
