Opportunistic Security as a Countermeasure to Pervasive Monitoring
draft-kent-opportunistic-security-01

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2014-10-11 (latest revision 2014-04-09)
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kent-opportunistic-security-01.txt

Abstract

This document was prepared as part of the IETF response to concerns about "pervasive monitoring" (PM) as articulated in [I-D.farrell-perpass-attack]. It begins by describing the current criteria (discussed at the STRINT workshop [STRINT]) for addressing concerns about PM. It then examines terminology that has been used in IETF standards (and in academic publications) to describe encryption and key management techniques, with a focus on authentication vs. anonymity. Based on this analysis, it propose a new term, "opportunistic security" to describe a goal for IETF security protocols, one countermeasure to pervasive monitoring.

Authors

Stephen Kent (kent@bbn.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)