Feeds

IETF plans to NSA-proof all future internet protocols

Standards boffins promise bloody fight for those who seek to sniff private data

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

The IETF has taken the next small step down the long, long road of protecting user traffic from spooks, snoops and attackers, setting down the basic architectural principle that new protocols should resist monitoring.

It's not going to be a trivial undertaking: practically every layer of the Internet protocol stack has its origins in a more innocent era.

The new document, RFC 7258 (here), formalises the decision reached at the Vancouver IETF plenary in November [video] that pervasive monitoring is an attack on Internet users (and, in fact, “Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack” is the title of the RFC).

Unlike the blithe statements from law enforcement around the world that metadata collection is innocuous, the RFC explicitly includes metadata collection in its list of threats to Internet users, along with the collection of protocol artefacts, application content, active and passive wiretaps, traffic analysis and cryptographic subversion.

The aim of the new RFC, it says, is to record “the IETF community's consensus” and establish “the technical nature of PM.”

However, the RFC also makes the admission that we're never going to beat the spooks and snoops, because traffic necessarily traverses public networks and reveals where it's from and where it's going. “In all cases, there will remain some privacy-relevant information that is inevitably disclosed by protocols.”

Instead, the document states, protocol design in the future should “significantly increase the cost of attacking, force what was covert to be overt, or make the attack more likely to be detected”.

The RFC puts the onus on protocol developers to think about whether they're creating a new risk (or replicating an old one) early in the process: “adequate, early review of architectural decisions including whether appropriate mitigation of PM can be made is important”, because fixing mistakes late in the process is expensive.

The authors also note that the practice of reusing existing technology, while normal developer behaviour, can “significantly impact” how easy it is to monitor traffic in a new protocol. ®

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests
Day 4: 'News'-papers STILL rammed with Clooney nuptials
Shellshock: 'Larger scale attack' on its way, warn securo-bods
Not just web servers under threat - though TENS of THOUSANDS have been hit
Apple's new iPhone 6 vulnerable to last year's TouchID fingerprint hack
But unsophisticated thieves need not attempt this trick
PEAK IPV4? Global IPv6 traffic is growing, DDoS dying, says Akamai
First time the cache network has seen drop in use of 32-bit-wide IP addresses
Oracle SHELLSHOCKER - data titan lists unpatchables
Database kingpin lists 32 products that can't be patched (yet) as GNU fixes second vuln
Who.is does the Harlem Shake
Blame it on LOLing XSS terroristas
Researchers tell black hats: 'YOU'RE SOOO PREDICTABLE'
Want to register that domain? We're way ahead of you.
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
The next step in data security
With recent increased privacy concerns and computers becoming more powerful, the chance of hackers being able to crack smaller-sized RSA keys increases.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.